[Editor’s Note: This is a Reader Submission from RikSmits. Enjoy!]
I am one of the – apparently few – Kings fans who does not often get excited about the whole draft process and scrutinizing dozens of prospects. I did in 2018, but I am not here to restart that conversation.
I mostly think that it is incredibly difficult to predict the transition from college (or Europe) to the NBA, also taking into account that we, as fans, have access to just a small part of the information. In particular, the mental/psychological/character element is something that we are just guessing about in most cases (with some exceptions).
In my opinion the draft itself, just like the lottery, is a bit of a lottery. I’m not here to discredit those who do a lot of research, have a weighting system for prospects and color-coded Excel sheets. I like to read them, and I know all about spending an inordinate amount of time on a hobby others care little about.
I see a lot of comments on Twitter of people being so confident that with a top 4 pick, we will surely come away with a stud. I don’t really share that optimism, as I remember quite a few high lottery picks who were not really difference-makers.
In that regard, the venerable (ancient?) L-Ron Toro recently pointed out that in many cases, the top 4 players picked are not necessarily the top 4 players from that draft class – especially in the order forecast – even if the top 3 or 4 is “clearly” a tier above the rest of the players. There often seems to be at least one player who doesn’t measure up to the expectations that us the fans and clearly at least one FO had. I wanted to examine that assumption.
So I decided to look at the odds when a team has a top ten pick (as the Kings so often had, the last decade and a half), and a top 4 pick, specifically, to find a player that can propel them to the next level.
I reviewed the top 10 players picked in ten drafts in the recent past. I left out the most recent drafts since the view on young players can still change, this early in their career. And I did not go longer back, given the developments regarding scouting, analytics and such matters over time.
The cut-off at ten is perhaps a bit arbitrary, but the percentages are easier with a round 100 players and it’s a more significant sample size than just look at the top 4.
For me, it is also interesting to see if there is a significant shift in odds from having a top 4 pick, in relation to a top 10 pick (as there should be, ideally).
I made a distinction into the following tiers:
- Franchise changers; players who were/are a large component in success of their team, likely future HOF-ers
- All Stars; players who are All Stars, but have not had the same impact as franchise changers.
- Stars; very good players, but do not really move the needle on their own/need help.
- Starters/6th
- Bench players.
- Busts
In my view, if a team parlays a top ten pick into a player in one of the first 3 tiers, that team is doing well.
Picking a guy in the 4th tier is kind of standing in place.
Coming away with a player in tier 5 or 6 sets you back.
Of course there are nuances. Whiffing completely on the 2nd pick hurts more than on the tenth pick.
If you have three All Stars, picking another guy in tier 3 or 4 or even 5 can be fine. But looking from the perspective of teams who are usually in the lottery (bad teams), I think the assessment holds water.
I realize that some of these rankings are debatable. The only clear-cut criterium is the All Star tier, and even there you can use an asterisk here and there. For instance, Andre Drummond was a two-time AS, but seems more or less a role player in today’s league. A bit differently, how to rate a guy like Oladipo with one All Star appearance?
I took into account draft position, so I was harsher on Parker and Bagley (no. 2 selections) than on guys like Frank Kaminsky and Thon Maker. Do we know completely who Mo Bamba is? Etc.
Here we go.
2009
- Blake Griffin – 2
- Hasheem Thabeet – 6
- James Harden – 1
- Tyreke Evans – 3
- Ricky Rubio – 3
- Jonny Flynn – 6
- Stephen Curry – 1
- Jordan Hill – 5
- DeMar DeRozan – 2
- Brandon Jennings – 4
2010
- John Wall – 2
- Evan Turner – 4
- Derrick Favors – 4
- Wesley Johnson – 5
- DeMarcus Cousins – 2
- Ekpe Udoh – 5
- Greg Monroe – 4
- Al-Farouq Aminu – 4
- Gordon Hayward – 2
- Paul George – 2
2011
- Kyrie Irving – 1
- Derrick Williams – 6
- Enes Freedom – 4
- Tristan Thompson – 4
- Jonas Valanciunas – 3
- Jan Vesely – 6
- Bismack Biyombo – 5
- Brandon Knight – 5
- Kemba Walker – 2
- Jimmer Fredette – 6
2012
- Anthony Davis – 1
- Michael Kidd-Gilchrist – 6
- Bradley Beal – 2
- Dion Waiters – 6
- Thomas Robinson – 6
- Damian Lillard – 1
- Harrison Barnes – 4
- Terrence Ross – 4
- Andre Drummond – 2
- Austin Rivers – 5
2013
- Anthony Bennett – 6
- Victor Oladipo – 2
- Otto Porter – 4
- Cody Zeller – 4
- Alex Len – 5
- Nerlens Noel – 5
- Ben McLemore – 5
- Kentavious Caldwell-Pope – 4
- Trey Burke – 5
- CJ McCollum – 3
2014
- Andrew Wiggins – 2
- Jabari Parker – 6
- Joel Embiid – 1
- Aaron Gordon – 3
- Dante Exum – 6
- Marcus Smart – 3
- Julius Randle – 2
- Nik Stauskas – 6
- Noah Vonleh – 6
- Elfrid Payton – 5
2015
- Karl-Anthony Towns – 2
- D’Angelo Russell – 2
- Jahlil Okafor – 6
- Kristaps Porzingis – 2
- Mario Hezonja – 6
- Willie Cauley-Stein – 5
- Emmanuel Mudiay – 6
- Stanley Johnson – 5
- Frank Kaminsky – 5
- Justise Winslow – 5
2016
- Ben Simmons – 2
- Brandon Ingram – 2
- Jaylen Brown – 2
- Dragan Bender – 6
- Kris Dunn – 6
- Buddy Hield – 4
- Jamal Murray – 3
- Marquese Chriss – 5
- Jakob Poetl- 4
- Thon Maker – 5
2017
- Markelle Fultz – 6
- Lonzo Ball – 3
- Jayson Tatum – 1
- Josh Jackson – 6
- De’Aaron Fox – 3
- Jonathan Isaac – 5
- Lauri Markkanen – 4
- Frank Ntilikina – 5
- Dennis Smith Jr. – 5
- Zach Collins – 5
2018
- Deandre Ayton – 3
- Marvin Bagley III – 6
- Luka Doncic – 1
- Jaren Jackson Jr. – 3
- Trae Young – 2
- Mo Bamba – 4
- Wendell Carter Jr. – 4
- Collin Sexton – 3
- Kevin Knox – 6
- Mikal Bridges – 3
Percentages for top 10 picks:
- Franchise changers – 8%
- All Stars – 19%
- Stars – 13%
- Starters/6th men – 17%
- Bench players – 21%
- Busts – 22%
Percentages for top 4 picks:
- Franchise changers – 15%
- All Stars – 27.5%
- Stars – 12.5%
- Starters/6th men – 15%
- Bench players – 2.5%
- Busts – 27.5%
What stands out?
Based on what I wrote about the tiers, I think a team can significantly improve with a player from the first, second and third tier, kind of stay in place with a fourth tier player and really set themselves back with players in the 5th and 6th tier.
With that in mind, having a top ten pick gives a team a 40% chance of significantly improving, a 17% chance of being stuck in neutral and a 43% chance of taking a step back.
With a top 4 pick, the odds improve notably. It gives a team a 55% chance of significantly improving, a 15% chance of staying stuck in neutral, and just a 30% chance of going backwards.
It can be argued that for the Kings, especially taking into account the pressure on Monte given the play-off drought and Sabonis’ contract situation, need a real difference maker, so a player in the first two tiers.
What else stands out? Despite the fact that international players are a big chunk of the All-NBA team, quite a lot of international players taken into the top ten didn’t pan out, with a few notable exceptions.
To summarize, I hope that somehow, Monte manages to pick a guy in the top two tiers, because that is what this team needs. The odds are – checks notes again – 42.5%. Not bad at all, but certainly not a slam dunk. Even when we think that the there is a clear gap between the top 4 players and the rest of the prospects.
100%.
Next!
And very nice work, Rik. A lot to chew on.
Damn, this guy is funny. Get him a talk show. He can have my old slot.
Perfect
Still stings.
One of those names is not like the others.
According to the tiers, that name should be changed to:
Marvin Bagley VI
I really wanted to stay away from this matter.
My main point is that not only the Kings get it (horribly) wrong, it is just very hard to predict accurately how college and international players transition to the NBA. The draft poundits get it wriong, the GM’s get it wroinmg and even the TKH readers get it wrong.
Look at Phoenix, at team we’d wish we could emulate, and look at who they took at #4 in 2016 and 2017. Yet they were a finalist just a year ago.
That is reason for hope! But you really got to have some significant big hits (Booker, Bridges, Ayton) among the misses.
I keep it simple.
Without question the Kings need to draft a superstar. Therefore, I predict they trade the pick for a pretty good vet with 1.5 years left.
None of what I’ve just written is humor, it’s what I expect to occur. I have no reason to believe the win now mandate has been lifted, no matter how much draft analysis Kings twitter generates.
The odds are, as with every draft class, that there isn’t a superstar among them. With math like that in play, the degree of difficulty is greatly increased, and the notion of using the pick to get a good young player should hardly be assumed to be a failure on its face. A bird in the hand, and so forth.
Under current circumstances, I don’t have a preferred path, and instant evaluations of whatever shakes out are very likely to be overly-emotional, and largely useless.
95% of NBA fans considered the trade for Sabonis a win-now move, in spite of the fact that the play-in/playoffs were never a possibility because of the rest of the roster. Even if the Kings somehow land Jabari Smith, it would be no guarantee of getting to the postseason. The organization could do everything exactly right two weeks from now, and it could still turn to shit.
You take the best information that you’ve got, pore over it until your eyes bleed, shoot your shot, and live with it. There are too many factors beyond anyone’s control to be certain of anything.
…and after you do all of that, you then run it by your win-now and worst-ever owner who cares about things like optics and flashbulbs more than anything else.
Who is very bad at optics in spite of caring about it so much.
that’s why he cares about it so much.
The chicken and the egg is starting to be jealous of this conversation.
Optics, Smoptics – unless he is looking through his navel. It’s all about Vivek – always has been, always will be. He doesn’t understand “Team”.
He can read about, quote philosophies and dialectics regarding it, hand signal with Drake over it and reassure all who he has paid to listen that his intentions are all about it – but it just ain’t so. This owner lives in a Hall of Mirrors and there is no better proof of that than his outcomes – he can’t talk around that, though he can try.
Shaka!
Kings will screw this up.
It’s a done deal.
Not even sweating it.
Just the mere thought that his team is in a win-now mode is so incredibly foolish that it’s impossible to take them seriously.
This ^
Cold World
The fact that some of us said this before, after and during the draft just makes it hurt that much more.
Whoa, Fanposts are back. Awesome!
Great read, Rik.
Painful to remember some of the blunders the Kings made.
Great work, Rik! 🙂
This seems to align with some of the comments in other threads about the Kings just needing to make some good picks over several drafts to be ok. Instead, we’ve drafted too many strike-outs…players that aren’t even in the league anymore.
So I’m on the side of drafting a “safe” pick like Murray who I have a hard time seeing bust…rather than drafting a pick like Sharpe who could be a future star, but also I could see as having a higher chance of busting.
Yeah, teams in better position as far as their roster is concerned, can gamble on drafts more than the Kings can, where another bad pick really kills us.
Unfortunately, Vivek seems to want Monte to win now, so we’re probably going to swing for the fences.
I think there are two schools of thought here.
One is like you said; you have to have enough okay to good picks in order to succeed.
The other is that you have to hit a homerun at least once. I’m more leaning towards that school. A player like Luka or Tatum really changes the trajectory of a team.
With a bunch of okay/good players, you really need other things to allign in order to become good. Less room for error, I think. Just like things have to allign to go from good to great.
Nice work Rik. I’ve thought about this. To me, this is probably our biggest failure over that time period and it covers multiple GMs, so we can’t just lump all the blame on Vlade (well, 2018 was an epic fail, but I digress) or Pete as saint Geoff had some crap picks in there as well. Way too many fives and sixes, so we weren’t even getting solid rotation guys let alone stars.
But why? Why so many failed picks over multiple regimes? Bad luck? Poor scouting? Stupidity? All of the above? I don’t know. I get that the draft can be a crap shoot, but man, we’ve had way too many 2s, 3s and 12s and not nearly enough 7s or 11s and I don’t have an explanation for it.
Exactly right
The why? I think a combination of everything, and also a general lack of leadership and direction.
And in the environment we have here, the chances of success are even smaller of developing potential into actual on-court production. Good talent will flow to the top no matter what, IMO. But decent talent can succeed or fail, and we have not been good at providing the proper environment for decent talent to thrive.
I know that people will point out that players went from the Kings to other teams and didn’t devop there either. But I also think that the first 2-3 years in the NBA are very crucial, perhaps even make or break-crucial.
But the fact that we hit so little hurt us badly, because we didn’t even have some decent, mismatched pieces to use as (semi-)valuable assets.
Nice article, fellow Dutchman!
Which team will pick the 2022 Bust of the Year?
Great article – really shows that you need to pick well and that this pick in particular gives us a chance of getting a difference-maker, but we really need to pick well. While there is clearly variance by draft, if we look at only the players left starting with the 4th pick (basically picks 4-10) there’s:
11 ones and two our of 60 total players.
So in a generic draft, we have about an:
18% chance of drafting a franchise changer (3%) or all star (15%)
But no pressure on Monte and the front office 🙂
Small side note – in the spirit of purely fun to debate nitpicking on a basketball board, I would probably include Wall and Trae Young in the franchise changer category. I realize Wall won’t get to Canton and Young is still very TBD…
But Wall really helped turn the Wizards around and was the best player on a very flawed 49 win team that made the 2nd round. He’s a 5 time all star who made the All Defensive Team in 2015 and All NBA 3rd Team in 2017. Injuries detailed him at his peak, but he was more than just an All Star.
Meanwhile, Young is already at 2x all star at 23 who just made the All NBA 3rd team.
I realize you were probably shooting for a true, could be the #1 player on a championship team tier and this doesn’t impact any of your actual insights. But with Irving, AD, and Lillard in the “1 tier” – I put on my “debate sports over a beer at the pub” hat on 🙂
That’s another way to look at it! Good one. Depressing, though.
I hope one day, we’ll sit over beers and quibble over the rankings of guys like Wall and Trae, while celebrating a Kings championship.
Either way, as a Kings fan there is always a reason to drink.
That will be an amazing day! Hopefully sooner rather than later. Beers aren’t nearly as fun when they need to come out your catheter (or so I’ve been told).
lol
I certainly hope not! He has an important distinction of being the most ridiculously overpaid NBA player ever since…… Gilbert Arenas.
With AD and Dame, I can see that. Irving could be that on talent, but he’s also monkey in a tin shithouse crazy to really be a franchise guy.
The Kings have more busts than the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
You nailed what’s a crapshoot the draft is. It’s not a 2 foot putt but rather 1 from the edge of the green. Of the top 6 on most consensus drafts I think Smith Paolo and Murray have the highest floor ( thus a pick more likely not to be below a 3). To me, Smith Ivey and Sharpe have the greatest ceilings (more likely a 1 or 2).
Should the Kings go high risk ( I assume Smith goes 1) on Ivey or Sharpe or take one of the other 3 who are safer picks.
I don’t know. I’ll talk myself into the pick and then evaluate at Summer League.
Great work Rik.
Good luck to us all.
Thank you, oh Venerable One. 🙂
You’ve misspelled “venereal.”
Great write up Rik.
Love this analysis! Nice work!
Great jorb Rick! Excellent work from my 4th favorite European.
Okay, so Johan Cruyff and Ruud Gullit, bot who is the third?
Willem Van Hanegem (De Kromme). Sorry he is from Feyenoord, but still……
Big Andy in Scotland
Or another way to look at it, when the Kings draft in the top 10, they have a 0% chance of selecting a game changer, and 70% chance of getting worse.
Take a bow, Rik.
His sitting reach is higher than some guys’ standing reach!
Before today we could all say qualitatively the Kings have drafted poorly. Now we can say that quantitively as well.
Great read. I remember being bummed when Nerlans Noel didn’t drop one more pick. Ha
Excellent article Dutchman. You lay out the odds well.
I think where I’m at harkens to the point of your post. Is a young player going to move the needle and add 5 wins? Probably not. Especially his rookie season. I think McNair is best served trading down, grabbing assets, and taking a young player with legitimate upside. Then figuring out how to add talent via trade. My preferred target is John Collins, but who knows? You never know.
There’s no way the Kings improve in the W column next year solely by drafting Keegan Murray. I have a hard time seeing how drafting Ivey is necessarily the right move unless you think the guy ends up a top 20ish player within 3 years. You’re always going to reconfigure your roster for a player of that caliber. Absent that, Ivey’s a tough sell.
Would I trade the pick for Pascal Siakam? I wouldn’t because Siakam is 28 and has 2 years left on his deal. And I think what’s troublesome is the next contract. I’d say no to that.
Keegan Murray seems like a good compromise but I want a higher ceiling out of the 4th pick. Convince me Murray’s ceiling is higher than I think.
If you draft either Shae’don Sharpe or Bennedict Mathurin, you’d better make me believe they can defend bigger wings.
I get the intrigue of Dyson Daniels, Jeremy Sochan and Tari Eason. But there’s no way you’re taking any of them at 4 based on what we know now. I’d be pretty surprised if Eason was a lottery pick period.
And this comes back to how effectively you judge talent. The lottery is not an automatic panacea, as your post proves Dutchman. If I had to guess who the 5 best players will be, I’d bet it will be out of the group of the top 3 on every mock, every player I’ve mentioned, and maybe throw Johnny Davis in there because stranger things have happened.
So among Smith Jr, Holmgren, Banchero, Ivey, Murray, Sharpe, Mathurin, Daniels, Sochan, Eason, and Davis. That’s 11 guys. And I’ll bet there’s someone I didn’t list who jumps into that top 5 group. Because that’s the history of the draft.
Thanks again for the great writeup.
Keegan Murray is a long, 6’8″ forward that can shoot, defend, rebound, drive, score in transition, make the right play, and hustles his ass off. I foresee him coming into the league and averaging something like 15-8-3 per 36, with good defense and limited turnovers/fouls on top of that.
That’s already a really good player, and he’d only be 22 years old. He seems to have a great head on his shoulders, and a drive to work hard. I think he’d be a great cultural fit next to guys like Davion and Barnes, as well as a great fit on the Fox-Sabonis timeline/lineup.
By the time he’s 27 years old, who’s to say he can’t average 22-9-4 with a couple blocks/steals per game? That’s all-star production at a position that’s in high demand around the league with fairly low supply. Would anybody be upset with that at #4?
There. That’s my pitch.
I’ve seen a couple of different people use Danny Granger as a comp, and that doesn’t seem insane to me.
I wouldn’t expect Murray to have Granger’s crazy scoring numbers (two seasons over 32ppg and two more just under 30?), but I’m guessing his floor would be 18/8 with some assists, blocks, steals and hardnosed defense thrown in. Becoming a 20/10 guy is on the table, with Murray’s smarts, work ethic, and switchability at both ends.
His athleticism is frequently knocked, but it’s not like he’s Kyle Anderson out there. He’s a good athlete, just not to the degree that Morant, or perhaps Ivey are. I’d bet that he’ll have his share of chasedown blocks and rim-run with the best of them.
I do think that Murray could be an all-star one day. If he’s as much in the Haliburton/Mitchell mold as we’ve been led to believe, if there’s a way to make it happen, he will do the work to get there.
I just watched his scouting report at Hoop Intellect’s YouTube. I hadn’t thought about Granger, but he definitely rings that bell. He reminded me a lot of Shane Battier, as well. A glue guy who doesn’t need to be the focal point to be very effective for his team. And we definitely need that.
I mean this with all due respect, that doesn’t excite me as much as it should. The problem with Ivey is that I’m not convinced he’s a top 20 talent that you should reconfigure your roster for. The problem with Murray is you still need A) more talent and B) how high is Murray’s ceiling really?
Danny Granger comps are good fine and dandy. I get the appeal of that, and were the Kings in a different spot I would likely be quite thrilled to get a Keegan Murray.
But the needs of the Kings are significantly more than just drafting a young player. They need more top to bottom talent, and I think they need to swing for upside that I’m not convinced exists with Keegan Murray.
Murray might prove me wrong, and I hope he does. Maybe his ceiling is higher than I give it credit for.
I appreciate your perspective, though, on Murray and on other prospects. I do find it interesting.
The only reason people seem to say he has a lower ceiling is athleticism.. and that really seems to be a talking point to justify the potential of the other less polished candidates.
so murray, scores inside and out with efficiency, excellent BBIQ, should be able to switch defensively between forwards, very good shooter at the 4, center Xcellence fundamentals, strong defensively, can c&S, play down low, cuts and finishes well. Has gotten better each of the last 3-4 years, high character
they say he is average or below average on shot creation, most 3-4 players are not know as great shot creators. I don’t see a low or mid ceiling.
Know who else doesn’t/didn’t have great athleticism? Luka, Harden, Jokic, Dirk, Duncan, Magic, Bird, etc.
I’l take high IQ and a treasure trove of skills over athleticism any day of the week.
Truth.
Also, Dirk was the 9th pick and Joker 41 . Agree about skills and IQ . Those seem under rated and athleticism over rated .
Both guys were picked as low as they were because neither had ever played in the US, and high performance in European leagues, even the best of them, is far harder to evaluate than that of college and D-League players. The latter isn’t an exact science by any means, but the metrics are generally better understood.
If it was strictly about athleticism, Nowitzki wouldn’t have gone as high as he eventually did.
Everything you say is true here and I don’t disagree with either point.
But, it should be pointed out that every one of those guys was 19 when drafted or in Bird and Duncan’s cases would have been lottery picks if they declared when 19. Premiere talents tend to show out at early age. Not always but more often than not.
I do think it matters that Keegan is almost 22. I do think it matters that as a 20 year old last year (Freshmen, but 2 years removed HS) he couldn’t get 20 minutes a game. There isn’t a ton of recent success of guys age 21-22 drafted in lottery turning into really high impact players. Look at what any of those guys listed above were doing in their Year 21 or 22 in the NBA. I know you aren’t directly comparing Keegan to those guys as comps, but there are skilled guys and then there are SKILLED guys, like the ones you mentioned.
Feel like a Harrison Barnes type career is a reasonable comp and would be a successful outcome for Keegan, but I’m not taking that with the 4th pick in this draft and with the Kings needs for top end talent.
If Keegan is the pick I will talk myself into it and yeah he probably won’t be a bust…but I would personally be surprised if he is a 20/10 guy like some are speculating. I hope I’m wrong…I miss all the time like everyone else.
For what it’s worth, here are a few accolades received by the player that was ahead of Murray on the Iowa depth chart in ’20’21:
• Naismith Trophy
• Big Ten Jesse Owens Male Athlete of the Year
• Associated Press College Basketball Player of the Year
• Oscar Robertson Trophy
• Lute Olson National Player of the Year Award
• NABC Division I Player of the Year
• Sporting News National Player of the Year
• Unanimous consensus first-team All-American
• NABC Pete Newell Big Man of the Year
• Senior CLASS Award
• Wooden Award Finalist & All-American
• USBWA District VI Player of the Year
• NABC & USBWA All-District Team
• Big Ten Men’s Basketball Player of the Year
• Big Ten Conference unanimous first-team honoree
• Associated Press Big Ten Player of the Year
• Iowa All-Time Leading Scorer
When you’re the guy who just showed up, it can be tough to convince a college coach to sit his senior all-American so that you can get in some reps. Seems to me that Murray stepped up when he got his chance.
True, no doubt he did and Garza would suck up usage opportunities , but he also played behind a couple 6”6’ wings that were not exactly high end NBA talent. And he wasn’t a true Freshmen when that happened. It’s just one piece of info.
I think he will be a fine player, I would just swing bigger at 4 even if my bust chance is higher. If the Kings were 6-10 then go for Murray and trying to get a quality starter.
Kings have very little avenue to try and obtain a potential franchise changer. A draft pick this high in this particular draft feels like at least an opportunity.
Yeah, I can’t argue with any of that. Whoever is left at four could be that franchise-changer, but I still can’t convince myself that Murray is definitely not one of those guys.
I’d love to get Ivey in to run with Davion defending him, and with him defending Fox and Barnes. Not at the same time.
And getting Murray in to see how he defends Sabonis, Barnes and Fox, while letting him go at Sabonis, Lyles, and Barnes with the ball.
I would be a little surprised if Murray won’t come in for some face time, and could imagine him impressing in the same kind of way that CJ McCollum did when he visited. Sue me, I like the smart ones.
Then Keegan Murray is your pick. Why trade for John Collins, while giving up assets and paying his contract, when you can pick a player that I feel will be just like him.
I’ll also add, you aren’t getting John Collins unless you are willing to give up a pick this year (if Monte trades back) or a future pick. Back when the Kings were projected to pick #7 and the likes of Mathurian or Daniels were in that range, I’d have no problem trading that pick in package for John Collins (likely #7 and Barnes). Now you don’t have to because he is there for you at #4, and you get to keep Barnes.
Trading for Collins is the ultimate KaNGz move. Give up assets for another mediocre player that will not change the trajectory of the team.
I actually think Collins is a good player, but giving up assets to get him (likely Barnes and a pick) is a lateral move. That’s why getting a player of his game and quality in Murray, might be the better option.
I guess that is what I mean by mediocre. He is a good role player. He is not going to change anything for any team by himself. Barnes has more value in the NBA than Collins in my opinion.
Because John Collins is a talented NBA player who can help you win games NOW. That’s why. Giving up assets? Like what? Since you’re a doomer, you always see this as the worst case scenario. Atlanta can ask for whatever they want. Hell, I want to fuck Becky G. It doesn’t mean I’m going to get the opportunity anytime soon, or ever.
If the rebuttal you have here is that ‘Keegan Murray is a cheaper version of John Collins’, you simply don’t have enough money to compete in the NBA. There are no shortcuts to actual success. Let me know where you’ve heard that one before.
The Kings aren’t trading their 4th pick for John Collins, unless they’ve become abjectly stupid on every conceivable level. I’m talking about the McNair’s, Wilcox’s, Johnson’s, Jabour’s of the world. This is the same group that traded for Domantas Sabonis, they are not going to give away an asset like the 4th pick for a player of John Collins’ caliber. He’s good, very good at times, but not worth the 4th pick. Anybody saying the Kings are doing that are looking at past history prior to McNair and are ignoring recent history at their own peril.
I would have had a huge problem with that trade, and would have ripped McNair big time for it. That’s a very bad use of an asset, IMO, for reasons already stated in the previous paragraph.
Simply put, John Collins is a guy who misses 20-25 games a season on a 25M AAV contract for the next 3 seasons and possibly 4 if he picks up his option. That’s not worth the 4th, the 7th or 10th pick in this years draft. Period.
That’s why my preferred scenario is trade down with a team like San Antonio, or even OKC, for assets like picks, a young player (Keldon Johnson works for me), and some cap space (Holiday, Harkless, Len).
You trade Richaun Holmes (probably in a 3 way deal with Atlanta and some other team) as the main piece going back to Atlanta along with a protected pick from 2023-26 or so. (That’s negotiable.) That does several thngs. It gets a player back for the Hawks, and saves them money by getting them completely out of the luxury tax. While the Hawks owner, Tony Ressler, might be willing to pay the tax, there’s no especially good reason why Travis Schlenk should even ask given the quality of that roster at this time. Getting the Hawks completely out of the tax is not a horrible idea especially since the cap is going up and you are getting expensive as your roster ages.
Again, would they get Collins? Eh, who knows? Maybe somebody out there has a better offer, or wants Collins more and is willing to give up more. San Antonio might not be willing to give up all of that to get the 4th pick as there is nobody they think is worth trading up for. There’s always variables in these things.
What I know is your scenario’s for Collins are an absolute no-go regardess of what McNair does on draft day. And there’s no way I’m listening to Keegan Murray as an acceptable John Collins substitute because he’s all of 2 years younger and a lot cheaper. That’s just….bad business.
I’ve been watching bad business for a long damn time. I’m eager to see a reversal for a refreshing change of pace. But as always in these things, you’re welcome to do you Adam. Hell, you’re going to anyway.
I never said the Kings should trade the 4th pick for Collins. Don’t put those words in my mouth. Here is what I said:
You conveniently left out that last part when you quoted me. You say your preferred scenario is to trade back for assets and youth, then flip someone like Holmes and future assets for Collins. That is exactly when I’m also implying in my above quote.
I still stand by this: You aren’t getting Collins unless you are giving up a pick.
To your San Antonio idea (which I like and have floated the idea as well) Monte could trade the #4 and filler contracts to the Spurs for the #9 and Keldon Johnson. Then flip the #9, Holmes and filler for John Collins.
In that scenario the #4 nets you Keldon Johnson, Collins, and cap space. That’s pretty good value, IMO. It’s not the star power you might get at #4, but you’ve made the team a hell of a lot better in the present, which fits the mandate.
You had better get the 20,25 and cap space, too. Otherwise that deal is not worth doing.
Nope, that’s a no-go. Don’t care what Atlanta wants even if ultimately that’s what convinces them to do a deal. That’s just a stupid trade for Sacramento is what it comes down to. Collins isn’t worth that.
This is exactly what you and i are disagreeing about. You are aiming too low and not getting nearly enough for a valuable asset. You’re leaving too much on the table in trade for the 4th pick and then you overpay for Collins on the flip side of all that.
And the reason I left out the future pick of your statement is because that was not the issue with what you said. It’s valuation, simply put. You and I are on very different wavelengths on what the Kings should do and how they should go about their business.
It is what it is.
And1: The win now mandate is worthless when it comes to the draft. Your main objective with the draft should be to get a young player that can help you for many years. You shouldn’t be determining your pick based on how he fits with that roster, or at least not solely.
The reason I’m saying you pound the table and ask the moon for that 4th pick is because it is valuable. Just because Ivey and Murray may not be the right players for the Kings today doesnt mean they couldnt help someone else and now.
McNair has a lot of potential options on the table and how he plays this matters. But we shall see, maybe, after all the back and forth here (and the real back and forth between McNair and other FOs), the only realistic option is to take a player at 4. Sometimes that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
I agree that you should draft a young player that can help you for many years, I just worry that Monte may not have that same mindset. If that mandate is indeed looming over him, he may feel pressure for a “win now” move. I don’t want to see that happen as I too prefer to shoot for the stars on the #4 pick and not settle.
All these hypotheticals about trading down or acquiring Collins is with the presumption that Monte is making the “win now” move and not the smarter decision to draft a future star at #4. I think you and I would agree that now rookie is going to turn this ship around next season, or even the one after that.
Trading down is super smart when you need to build a roster because the draft is so predictable you know. Every team, especially the Kings, can predict precisely who is being drafted when and simply choose to draft in that position. Every player drafted is 100% a lock to perform as predicted. Trade down to the last pick in the draft and get the next Isaiah Thomas. It really is that easy.
You think people read beyond your third bull shit sentence let alone your own reply to your own grandstanding post???
Check your ego.
I don’t care if you read it or not.
Truth be told, I’d rather you didn’t since it clearly bothers you.
The most intelligent thing you have ever written.
Kinda seems guys with injury histories or guys who were drafted due to their size/athleticism are the ones most likely to bust. A bit obvious, but if you want a talented NBA player then you should pick guys who have demonstrated clear skill sets at the lower levels. That’s what Monte did with Hali/Davion and it has worked out well.
But I was already on the Keegan Murray train anyway….
You are my Keegan Doppelgänger
I agree and anyone who has posted here for awhile may already know I tend to favor high feel / high skill players.
But while the NBA has moved away from drafting pure athletes with low feel / skill in the lottery, there’s still a number of players who were drafted more for their athleticism/physical traits than their pure skill / feel and sometimes it works out really well.
Jaylen Brown, Zach LaVine, Giannis, Drummond, Adebayo, Siakam, etc. while not unskilled, were still drafted more for their physical traits and have become excellent players.
Meanwhile, the teams that passed on (or hypothetically in the case of Brown if the Celtics had passed on him) these players for players with more clear skill sets at lower levels like Buddy Hield, Luke Kennard, Valentine, McDermott, BMac, etc. obviously wish they had chased a bit more upside (and I say this realizing it is a simplification and I am not saying you would have advocated on passing on say Brown for Hield, but it was a battle of youth/athleticism versus proven college skill).
Now of course, for every player like them there are a ton of players like Bagley, Chriss, Exum, Mudiay, Maker, Thabeet, etc. who were big disappointments relative to where they were drafted.
But that’s part of what makes the draft so hard. You’re having to risk adjust and try to figure out the probabilities of each player developing and at what pick it’s worth the risk. At the time, most Kings fans felt Bagley was a bad risk at #2. But he was a legitimate lottery pick. If we were picking #7-10, then Bagley would have had a lot more supporters and with good reason.
So at least for me, when in doubt, I still tend to err on the side of feel/skill. I have Daniels and Sochan higher than most people probably do this year. But I also don’t think you can shy too far away from guys with great functional athleticism and some need for skill development.
Nicely done and what I can summarize is that Drafting Keegan Murray will be a Tier 2.5! Sign me up!
Excellent work on this, Rik! Here’s praying for a 3 or higher!
So….you’re on board with Keegan over Ivey then, eh? 😛
Great time and effort put into this, Rik. Thanks for the breakdown!
I wonder if front offices use data like this when it comes to the draft and trades. For example, if historically the #2 pick in the draft has the highest percentage of busts, does it give a GM pause that maybe there is more value in trading that pick? Or does a front office chalk it up to chance and that every draft is different because the players are different every year.
I really wonder, is there a poisoned pick slot that is that way because of over hyped expectations and potential that leads to more busts?
I don’t think looking at history makes sense because draft picks are independent events. The #2 pick this year is not affected by the #2 pick from previous years. You are not taking a card from the deck, you are rolling a dice. Just cause you got 3 sixes in a roll doesn’t mean you got a higher probability of rolling a six the next time. What I am wondering is if it is easier to draft #1 than #2 because there is usually a high-ceiling safe pick at #1. Once you picked that player, the guy at #2 is a high ceiling, high bust potential pick. I could be way off on this though.
Good job.
I wonder if players are getting better but this last year’s draft may yield a bunch of 2 or levels- Cade, Mobley, Green, Giddey, Barnes. I am not certain that there are any 4’s in last years top 10.
Of this years top options, Smith and Banchero and Murray will be successful. Chet, Ivey could be Bender and Josh Jackson.
Nice read Rik. Have a ????
Wonderful analysis, Mr. Smits. /bow of respect
If one were to take that 10 years and Kingsify it:
1 -0
2-1
3-2
4-0
5-2
6-4
Only 9 there – I removed Buddy Heild as he was not drafted by Sacramento; on that same draft the Kings had no Top 10 pick (GM Divac made a draft night trade of #8 Marquese Chriss for #13 and #28 (Giorgio Papagiannis, Skal Labiessiere) trading out of the Top 10). I also included Jimmer Fredette at 10 though GM Petrie technically drafted earlier but traded #8 Bismack Biyombo down for #10 and John Salmons (Go Fish).
Compared to your percentages (Top 10) vs. Sacramento:
1 – 8% vs 0%
2- 19% vs. 11%
3 -13% vs 22%
4 – 17% vs. 0%
5- 21% vs. 22%
6- 22% vs 44%
The 3 that comprise the no O, one #2, 2 #3, are DMC, 20-5-5, and Swipa.( aka Cousins, Evan and Fox). Their Draft positions were 5, 4 and 5. The only other Top 5 was, well, ahem, not Luka at draft position 2.
One could conjecture with some positivity that when the Kings have had a Top 5 pick, they have fared well compared to the draft class (except that one time…). And for that, I am encouraged as I would place GM McNair’s drafting prowess closer to GM Petrie on the scale of GMs (GM Divac, GM D’Alessandro are the other 2) and might surpass him some day. In the Ranadive era, he (Monte) appears to be the best draft decision maker, by far. That is welcome light in the deep dark tunnel of Kingsland.
Wonderful post Mr. Smits. I hope we can get another soon.
The Kings generally do not acquire actual NBA talent in any way shape or form. Draft, trade, free agency, cash considerations…..you name the method and they have failed.
It is not only total failure in the draft that has built the worst roster in the NBA. Too many Kings players do not belong in the NBA. The Kings have only recently started to get actual NBA players. If this trend continues the roster will be decent in a decade. It takes a while to build from a 50% NBA roster to an actual NBA roster.
Draft any player that is a legitimate NBA player. If that player fits on the roster awesome. If that player does not fit on the roster trade that player for another actual NBA player.
This team needs real players to fill a team or to be an asset that has value in a trade.
Great work and a necessary reminder of the draft realities . There seems a Jabari Parker or Derrick Williams in every draft and also a Real gem like Jokic and Middleton in the 2nd round .
This is awesome Rik! Thanks for your hard work on this really interesting to see all the data in one place like this.
Thanks everyone for the comments and for the kudo’s!
It would be really nice to see more “fanposts” being published here (anything to drown out Greg is a positive, really 🙂 ).
Well done. Enjoyed the write up.
This is a great & interesting article.
Rik, Great work! I am going disagree with your classification of Harrison Barnes (2012) as a “4”. I think “very good players, but do not really move the needle on their own/need help.” fits him better, i.e. a “3”.
It’s a bit silly for me to quibble over individual classifications, but I think it is worth it here because Harrison Barnes is an oft made comp for Keegan Murray, a probable option for the Kings.
And1 “2” is a bit generous for Demarcus: notwithstanding his allstar appearances, I don’t think overall he moved the needle much for his teams. And I was a fan of his game (and maybe his “heart”) … but not his attitude!
There are a lot of busts at #4. Teams often, as the Kings do now, feel it’s high enough you have to swing for the fences. It’s another ANTI-GOLDILOCKS ZONE.
P. Williams was considered a reach at #4 for the bulls. 6’7″ 215 lbs., unimpressive college career. has hardly reached his ceiling in the NBA, and Chicago has no regrets. Murray is similar, but obviously more skilled. Guys like him don’t miss, and they are valuable enough to justify #4.
Harrison Barnes would have been a good pick at #4 (especially by Kings standards!) He went at #7, with three guys picked ahead becoming better players. Two were busts, (hello Thomas Robinson #5) and Dion Waiters, (Ivey might be as good a scorer.) I keep hearing Murray pigeon-holed as another H. Barnes, I see more Jayson Tatum. Ivey isn’t valuable enough to be worth an HB trade.
Ivey against Murray is an apples vs. oranges comparison. I’m not sure if apples are currently priced higher but, of the two Murray is the one worth the most. I don’t think I can see this the other way. The arguments for Ivey all sound like rationalizations to me. And please no one try to convince yourself he’s another Ja Morant.
The dash inconsistency will haunt my dreams!
This is awesome data work! Another view I’d be curious about is what the distribution is for the 4th pick (not sure if someone else already did this in an earlier comment)?
4th pick splits
Looks like there were no franchise changers picked 4th for the past decade, which doesn’t bode too well, but there’s a good chance to get another star.
Also, not sure why people are listing Dion Waiters as a bust, dude had an 8-year NBA career with a 13.1 PPG career average starting on multiple teams. He’s probably a 5 or a 4 at best, unlike actual busts who were out of the league within 5 years.
Badge Legend