Chainmail: It’s rumor season!!!

No one is telling James Ham who the Kings are planning to draft, if that decision has even been made, and he should have enough self-awareness and a detached broader perspective to know this.  If his source is saying Moody is “their guy”, a flimsy player who may shoot 40% next season, though thats besides the point, he should add 1+ 1 and conclude he is NOT the guy instead of playing the sucker in a misinformation / disinformation campaign.
 
We know the Kings do not release the names of players they’ve worked out or make them available to media, so what makes him think he is so special or priviledged he is going to get the inside skinny?  If the leak did have merit, the culprit would face serious consequences given the protocols McGenius has tried to put in place. The leaker would be identified admonished and possible terminated. What would the motivation to leak information be other than to mislead and throw off adversaries, that is, teams drafting ahead and behind?  

Of course this is simple logic but Ham’s ego or cognitive abilities do not allow him simple logic. So good news, we are not drafting Moody, who is not a dynamic player, rather a boring needle non-mover. He is a poor mans Mikal Bridges. Is that who we want on our team, when we could get a star in Zaiare, Alperen or the Unicorn?  Moody is a lesser version of a guy who disappears for stretches and helped the Suns to a 3-2 hole with the brass ring in his teams grasp if he did not pull a Houdini act too frequently. Bridges is unable to create his shot, too willing to blend instead of assert alpha will and skill. 

Bridges is not a star and Moody will not be as good as him for at least 2-3 years if he ever gets there, which is nowhere special. This is the target to get excited about, I don’t think so.  But if you dont know basketball, the gamesmanship preceding the draft, you don’t identify pertinent variables, then you chase crumbs and play the fool. You are a convenient dupe, an unwitting tool, and perceptive as a Ham sandwich, so to speak.  

What is there to conclude then when it comes to bringing in players?  It means not a lot though if a player does not visit, you can conclude the team will not draft him. And even this comes with qualifiers. The team may draft a player they did not workout because he wanted to go elsewhere, tried to orchestrate it, but the shunned team drafts him anyway. Vlade would not draft a player in this case; we do not know if this regime is equally self-limiting. Additionally we may draft a player that did work out but somehow escaped public dissemination.  

I contend the FO knows who they want, more or less, after months of study, say a 60-75% or plus idea, a favorite and hieracrhy has emerged, if their workout goes well or better than expected. The reason to bring in that player and lesser deemed peers is (1) due diligence (2) i.e. leave no stone unturned and (3) affirm or refute your preliminary and predominant bias.

Suppose they decide they want Zaiare. If you are fairly sold on him for a multitude of reasons, would you not want to bring Moody and Barnes to affirm the superiority of your target? To provide the contrast, stark or subtle? To assauge dissenters in your inner circle? 

You want to erase lingering indecision and feel as good about this decison as Ty. Players disqualify themselves and in the process help qualify another. Players ultimately deemed inferior help solidify the preference, confirm the assessment made from a distance in a more customized uniform and revealing setting. The only thing the evaluator has to do is keep open mind and seriously reconsider if enough contra-evidence presents itself.  

This is far cry from Player X came to town and then using that as support for his pending selection, which Ham does. A visit is significant only relative to the player who never got an invite. Hams adds Moody “might have more skills than he showed in college”. This is not an argument. It can be said about any prospect. I might be a woman if I had breasts.  

Lastly it is curious fans could be mostly cool with the idea of adding below-the-rim Moody while simultaneously bemoaning the shot selection of below-the-rim Buddy most of last season. Buddy was the 1a reason we did not make the playoffs (Marvin was 1b). Buddy failed where other pivotal role players (aka intermittent stars) did not to support our dominant player (aka pertpetual star). Fox, Barnes, Holmes and Ty did enough to get us to the playoffs. We needed at least one (Buddy), preferably two more (Buddy and Bagley) then the platriness of the rest of the rotation and coaching staff could have been overcome.

It was Buddy who conspicuously failed, often getting hot after helping bury us by 15-20 points, and Bagley who conspicously failed, though in the latter case Bagley could never establish himself as a pivotal role player.  

Anyway lets turn around the team with a player with similar shortcomings, who shoots with a hand in his face because he lacks burst and juke moves? Neither Buddy or Moody can create space for themselves or finish strong over length. Call it irrational confidence or lack of shot discernment, it is not high percentage basketball.  Ham likens Moody to the type of player our GM chased at the deadline (TD and Wright). This is questionable because while all players get after it on defense, TD and Wright don’t take stupid shots, they have skills to free themselves from their defender.  I don’t even think Moody’s defense is that good either, he’s a below average athlete and lacks physicality, another similarity to Buddy.

Two Hours of Cringe Here:

Lou King > Moody