In a fairly tight race with two other prospects, Shaedon Sharpe came out ahead with 37.8% of the vote to be the 4th player on the Kings Herald Community Draft Board. He joins Paolo Banchero, Chet Holmgren and Jabari Smith Jr.
When a choice comes up, pick who you’d want the Kings to pick given all the players remaining. Note: THIS IS NOT A MOCK DRAFT. This is a draft board, a ranked list of prospects you’d like to see the Kings pick. In other words, if we were the Kings front office, when our pick came up, we’d take the top name left on our board. So pick your choice, not who you think Monte McNair or anyone else would choose in a slot.
Explain your choice in the comments, and lobby for who should be added to the next pick’s choices.
This poll ends at 5 AM tomorrow. The next one will begin on Monday morning. We will go roughly 20 picks deep.
Wow, little shocked that Sharpe went above Ivey and Murray.
I guess Ivey got 37.7%……..
Same. It seems high to me for a guy that we know very little about. Maybe we Kings fans are just so desperate for a star that we are willing to bet on an unknown as opposed to a lower risk.
The kid went from an unranked high school prospect for his first three years (3 different schools) then became #1 prospect his senior year after an impressive AAU showing of round 20 games and and not even a full season as Senior in high school He literally went from nobody to #1 in a few months and there is very little tape on him to see why.
Given the overwhelming NBA success of Skal Labissiere and Harry Giles there is no question the Kings should use the #4 pick on another unproven high school phenom. How could they go wrong?
I was as well, even went back to check to make sure there were no voting shenanigans but there really weren’t. For those interested in the final breakdown between the three guys (numbers a little different then when I prepared this post last night) it was:
Sharpe (37.4% with 92 votes)
Murray (30.9% with 76 votes)
Ivey (29.3% with 72 votes)
Did you guys receive my reader’s submission request?
Hi Rik, I’ll check with Blake, I think he’s the one who gets those e-mails.
Thanks!
I’m flumoxed how Ivey could be 3rd in this list. Perplexed and agog. Watch Ivey’s tape people! He’s doing stuff that Sharpe can’t do. I didn’t really see Sharpe creating his own shots, it’s all step back threes and alley oops. Over high school dudes.
Also I’m naturally suspicious of three pointers in a highlight reel. Am I seeing the three he made out of 15 he jacked up? But if he does a sick move that requires body control and great handles, much harder to do if they don’t legitimately have the skillset.
what’s the bias called that led to this? some sort of conformity bias?
I’m surprised too, but I also don’t blame anyone who voted Sharpe. I said it last thread and I’ll repeat again here: if the Kings take Sharpe, Ivey, or Murray, I’ll understand and get excited about it.
Personally, still voting Ivey. I think he’s the best talent available.
Today’s draft fact.
In the 1967 NBA draft the Kings selected Mel Daniels and Louie Dampier.
Daniels signed with the Minnesota Muskies and Dampier with the Kentucky Colonels of the ABA. Neither would ever suit up for the Kings. Both are Basketball Hall of Famers. That’s some quality Kangz right there.
Really don’t know why this is that surprising of a result. Ivey to me has many similarities to Fox and later stage Westbrook to me. His combination of some poor decision making, shot selection, and not being an elite shooter or lockdown defender just make this a tough selection. There are several players I would chose before him, including Murray, mathurin, and sochan.
I really like Murray. It is also a little harder for me to see a current or past player comparison of a similar All star level player that looks and plays like him.
I’m honestly shocked Sharpe went 4. He’s the most terrifying prospect for me.
I cannot say he is the BPA at #4………..
but I don’t know if we should gamble on Sharpe at all.
If you’re picking at #4, you should gamble on a guy like Sharpe who has star potential.
They all have star potential.
For some reason, the top prospects with the least amount of data end up being labeled with “star potential” or “highest ceiling”, and we just regurgitate is as fact while it’s just another opinion like anything else.
Call it “The Giles Label”.
Every year there’s one or two and it just gets tossed around like it’s a real thing.
Of course, Giles went 20th. But, yeah, he was ranked highly because of the skills he showed at a young age. I don’t think you’re out of line comparing Giles and Sharpe in terms of exposure and hype. Their flashes of film showed elite athleticism AND advanced skills for their age. The major difference is, of course, Sharpe doesn’t have the injury history. By Sharpe’s age, Giles had already had 2-3 major knee injuries. Were Giles NOT to have those injuries and maintained his youthful athleticism, I have absolutely no doubt he would have been well deserving of a place at the very top of his draft.
Of course, the clear Giles comp in this draft is Griffin. Considered at the top of their class before multiple leg injuries sapped their athleticism. Both still showed some high level skills, but the loss of pop didn’t allow them to impact the game as much. Hopefully, Griffin’s injuries are behind him and his athleticism returns to at least a decent level.
Totally agree. All of these guys are stud athlete youth players. Some will have decent NBA careers, one or two will be stars and the rest will fade into obscurity except to be brought up as bad examples come draft time. In 2009 it was pretty obvious that Stephen Curry had a lot of limitations, and that Tyreke Evans was a much better choice. Ricky Rubio was the top choice after Blake Griffen, kind of the Luka Doncic Eurostar of that draft, except he had a contract commitment and couldn’t play in the NBA for two more years.
The only thing more terrifying than drafting Sharpe…is passing on him.
Oof, tough call here between Ivey and Murray but ultimately its Ivey for me. His downhill, aggressive style play and if he can shoot the three over 35% screams go-to scorer for me.
Voted Murray here. But that’s mainly to get him off the board.
I’m all in on Murray so please speak highly of him!
Surprised but not shocked. If Ivey and Sharpe are the two home run swings, then Sharpe is the one who fits positionally. I’d be more willing to go this route if I’d seen Sharpe play a higher level of competition with success.
With #5 I go Murray still. Would like to see Mathurin added to the list.
I’m all in on Shape. Gotta take a big swing. Ivey is the same for me, so he’s next on my list. I do have this nagging feeling that Murray will end up being better than both. I would be all in to trade back with Indy to 6 and take whichever of Ivey, Sharpe or Murray falls. Throw in Brogdon and it makes a ton of sense.
Trading with Indy for Brogdon/Duarte + 6 or with Charlotte for Bridges + 13 is my preferred course of action if this is the choice we’re looking at.
You cant trade for a FA. I said this yesterday, but not only would there be tampering charges, but if there was a hint of tampering charges the NBA might not approve the deal to begin with.
Any hint that Miles Bridges is involved in anything will stop any trade in it’s tracks before July 1. But, beyond all of that, Bridges would also have to agree to come to Sac, and why would you risk yourself to tampering charges for Miles Bridges of all players?
I’ll put this another way so hopefully people get the point: The NBA will literally do everything in it’s power to stop a trade scenario like this happening. Not because it’s Miles Bridges, Charlotte or Sacramento, but because it opens a Pandora’s Box of movement the NBA is eager to never open so that larger, more lucrative markets cannot easily exploit such a loopholet.
A big part of the CBA, and more important the NBA bylaws, is to keep larger markets from having an unfair advantage. Eliminating draft pick trades to include RFA’s down the line is an easy way to do that.
Either would be great deals, if you’re trying to get better in a hurry.
Say the Kings swapped with New Orleans, dropped to eight, and take Mathurin. What do you think is the (realistic) best asset Sacramento could get from the Pels? I worship at the altar of Brandon Ingram, but I imagine the Kings would need to up their offer.
The simplest deal would probably be #4 for Herb Jones/Murphy III + #8, but that’s questionable return for Sacramento. If we’re looking at Ingram, I’d say #4 + Barnes for Ingram + ’23 top 10 protected seems fair, although it’d be disappointing to not get ANY of these kids this year.
I really doubt NOP has any interest in moving Ingram. Especially after a breakout playoff performance.
I’d take herb Jones over anyone not Brandon Ingram there.
I took Murray here, ideally after the Kings traded down a spot and snagged an asset from Detroit. I still think the fastest way to improve will be by turning the pick into an established player, and a promising rookie.
I think folks are overthinking this. Copy and paste from the other day:
Totally agree.
It reminds me of how we all watched Hali be a really productive player in college, but for some reason felt he wouldn’t improve much after that. Murray seems like a guy who has all the tools and numbers to back up his productivity, with the intelligence, frame, athleticism, and work ethic to continue getting better.
Yup. It’s also noteworthy that Luka was the safe pick. People said he was a high-floor but low ceiling guy.
Bagley was the athletic home-run swing pick.
As I said, sometimes the “safe” pick and this whole notion of who has a “lower ceiling” is all just talky talk.
Tim Duncan was an unathletic “safe” pick too. Here is some 1997 pre-draft analysis of Tim:
Imagine passing on him because he “is not the most talented player” in the draft.
(And before you yell at me, no, I am not saying that Murray is the next Tim Duncan. I am just saying that valuing athleticism over skill and ability isn’t always the best choice.)
I think you make some terrific points 1951. Murray seems like he will be a really good pro, with the chance to excellent.
I guess the other reason I lean towards him is positional scarcity. It seems like there are multiple opportunities in every draft to get an athletic unskilled guard who might develop into an all star. For every Ja Morant, or De’Aaron Fox for that matter, it seems like most end up being Dennis Scott.
This seems to be the rare draft where there are some really viable power fowards available, and that isn’t a really stacked position in the league. At some point it seems like every team is looking for a stretch 4. The top players at the position are 4’s in the sense that Tim Duncan was, in that the slide over to the 5 so often (Giannis, AD), I guess Durant is considered a 4. Mobley, Jackson, Williamson, Draymond, and Siakam are the next tier, then who? Collins, Randle, and Tobias Harris? Aaron Gordon?
If Aaron Gordon is the 12th best player at his position then I think that defines positional scarcity, and one doesn’t need to be too optimistic to imagine Murray becoming an 18pt 8 reb, shooting efficiently and being a competent defender and cracking that top 12 early on in his rookie scale contract and the Kings being able to pursue other weaknesses.
This comment needs to be sent to Monte immediately.
SUPER SOLID points. I was already Murray over Sharpe and Ivey, this just solidifies that.
And for the record. Don’t we want Davion to develop? Don’t we think he can develop? Is he already better than Ivey? Not as high flying but better shooter and exponentially better defender. Are we sure that Ivey can develop into a better player than Mitchell? I’m not. I know fit shouldn’t really matter but in this case I think there’s something to be said on that point. Wouldn’t Ivey minimize the value of last years draft pick (Davion Mitchell)? Is that wise to be lowering the asset value of Mitchell for the potential of Ivey when we really need a 3 or a 4 and there’s many good options for that position in this draft?
I think this is some seriously delicious food for thought. I can see the argument for Sharpe over Murray because it’s a home run swing that you hope connects while not devaluing any young developing player currently on the roster. Ivey over Murray… I just don’t get the rationale if I’m the GM and considering all angles including the ones I just presented above. Especially when the potential and current talent of each player (Ivey, Murray) is at worst equal at this very moment.
Now, drafting Ivey to make a trade down after the selection and grabbing Murray plus a rotational player /potential starter, that’s another conversation of who to pick at 4 that is basically impossible to argue. More is better. The only thing is you need to know that deal is in place. Selecting Ivey and hoping you can trade down afterwards is one thing. Having a deal in place to do exactly that is another. Not sure how all the negotiations and smoke-screening works
In the NBA but it happens quite often and Monte is experienced enough to be able to pull it off.
This is a great point. Everyone talks about talent versus fit, but I’ve never heard this argument about positional scarcity (even though I don’t read that much that isn’t about grass) and it’s pretty compelling. Very nice work.
All of that, Hali, Doncic, Duncan, is jus the typical lazy “athleticism equals upside” BS.
AGAIN, ditto for Griffin!
Except all those other guys were exceptionally high BBIQ guys, with high skill levels and well-rounded games who were high level producers prior to the NBA.
A few quotes regarding Griffin from across the internet:
His strength at 6’6 does show up on his tape, and he’s tough and doesn’t back down from physicality
Impressed me as a cutter, overall good moving without the ball
some encouraging rotations/plays in help, brick wall in the post
strong balance and good footwork. Griffin has a pretty promising turnaround shot that won’t be easily blocked.
he can power through physical defense
functionally strong defensively, tough to move in the post
When Griffin is engaged, he’s shown good awareness, getting deflections, or steals. There’s even been a couple signs of rim protection, when Griffin comes over and helps.
Obviously, you could cherry-pick the internet for quotes which are just as concerning, but I want to point out that I’m not alone in seeing defensive potential in him, at 18 years old.
And this is why I think Murray will surprise everyone. He checks all of those boxes – well rounded and high BBall IQ.
He does for the most part. The only thing Murray hasn’t shown is high level potential as a creator and/or passer.
His college head coach was on DLo and KC on Wed and he said Murray was the head of the offense and began most plays with the ball in his hands with Murray making a decision based on what he was seeing. The coach said since Murray didn’t require any plays be run for him to be effective, most of their run plays were to get others involved.
I know that isn’t the same as “playmaker” but he keeps the ball moving in the right direction and gets plenty of hockey assists by making the right read.
This is a good argument against my fear of drafting Chet. I really don’t like how slow he moves. His numbers are insane and his fit is seemingly excellent next to The Ox but I just see bust when I watch him move. I have Chet at #4 on my big board and might even gamble with sharpe over him.
I know I’m in the minority but I’m super smart and know everything so there’s that. 😉
I actually don’t think he moves slowly at all. Or, rather, he moves slow but he covers a TON of ground quickly. There are plenty of examples of him covering the full court quickly in grab-and-gos, rotation from the elbow quickly to get a block at the rim, or closing out from inside the key and getting a block on a 3pt.
In short, I think his extremely long, thin levels make his speed deceptive. He actually covers ground very quickly. Especially for a 7-footer.
Ditto for GRIFFIN!
Griffin is the guy I see as being the BIGGEST potential bust in the first round. Maybe not the worst player out of the first round, but most roundly falling short of expectations. Outside of the shooting, there’s not a whole lot he showed in college. Sub-par defense, playmaking, and self-creation. People really seem to be looking past his lack of productivity, especially in the tournament, just because he’s a big body that can jump. I am happy to let another team select him and prove me wrong, because I do not want to spend a pick on that guy.
If I’m a pretty good defensive team, I’d be very tempted by Griffin, but
No one needs me to finish the thought.
I’ll finish for you! He’s been slow on the perimeter, but he’ll help in the paint where they need it. He’s big, strong, skilled, athletic, and he can guard the rim.. The potential is there, a little knee soreness not-withstanding.
Let the guards defend the point-of-attack.
It seems like they need more help on the perimeter than the paint.
People keep saying, he’s a big body that can’t jump, There is no lack of productivity to look past, even in the tournament. Everyone agrees he can shoot, (99th percentile on ALL possessions in the half court).
When was the last time a guy with that kind of shooting productivity and that physical profile busted?
I think he’s the biggest potential bust in the lottery because he’s the most likely to have injury problems that derail his career. Otherwise, it will come down to your definition of “bust,” I think. If he’s healthy, I think his shooting will likely make him a useful rotation player. Just not an especially impactful one. Something like a Duncan Robinson. Who can provide good spacing and not hurt the team TOO much in other aspects. Maybe even be a starter on a decent team if all the other conditions are right.
But, yes, that’s not a profile I’m spending a high pick on.
Duncan Robinson is a very good modern comp
Although this comp sets a terrifying, and unacceptable (and ridiculous) low floor for Griffin, he and Duncan Robinson could not possibly look more different. One of them is 18 with an NBA physique, the other is 28 and will never be an NBA body. Although he’s 6’7″ and can shoot, DR went undrafted, and is currently in his third NBA season. As a teenager, Griffin is undoubtedly going in the top half of the first round, and already outweighs Robinson. DR represents the worst possible outcome for a guy 6’7″ who has, with years of pro coaching, learned to shoot like AJ GRIFFIN.
Duncan Robinson also went undrafted.
Shaedon Sharpe = Jeremy Lamb with hops.
I can’t speak to the meaning of “talented” as it relates to this analysis, so I don’t know if it leans heavily on athleticism, or something else. I was living in NC when Duncan was at Wake Forest, and saw him play several times. His talent was off the charts. Everything that he did was done exceptionally well, and he still seemed like a player who could improve and add other facets to his game.
There were some pretty great players in the draft, Chauncey Billups, T-Mac, but as a group, it’s a fairly weak class. After those three, you’re looking at Derek Anderson, Stephen Jackson,, Brevin Knight, and not a whole lot else.
I’m not sure who else the author was suggesting had more talent than Duncan, or who could have been a surer thing to be a great NBA player, but as I said, I don’t know what metric they used to define “talent.”
And I’m going to suggest that it doesn’t really matter, because no matter what, they were wrong.
youre not wrong but I think you’re kind of missing the point. Not insulting you just saying. I think the point is that these player rankings and analysis that are given to the common fan like all of us here are flawed at best. Duncan apparently wasn’t overwhelmingly viewed as the player with the most upside. Keagan Murray is also not viewed as the player with the biggest upside. However, and to your own point, he like Duncan does everything well and it’s clear he can get better.
No insult taken, I frequently miss the point, sometimes just for fun.
It’s been a hell of a long time, but I don’t recall much argument that Duncan was going to be the best pro from the class. To back up my argument, Keith Van Horn was the second pick that year.
There wasn’t really an argument. Duncan was considered so special that teams tanked for him at a time when that wasn’t common.
Speaking of Keith Van Horn, he might not be a bad comp for Paolo Banchero.
That evaluator was wrong, but Duncan was considered so special that teams tanked for him at a time when that wasn’t common.
If you check back you will find Duncan stayed in school an extra season even though many projected him No. 1 the year before he was a clear No. 1. Zero Duncan’s in this draft .
Seriously any source y’all reading saying Duncan wasn’t the nuts in his draft class should be eternally discounted.
Keith Van Horn, I would suspect, given that he was the 2nd pick that year.
But what little of the narrative around that draft I remember, the lottery was literally billed as the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.
Yeah, I can’t say I remember the narrative, but the “talent” one above would be surprising since Duncan was the clear, far-and-away consensus #1. After him there was no consensus and a ton of question marks. Honestly, since the author didn’t state it, I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t actually have another player in mind. Probably just a rhetorical choice. Or maybe he had someone like McGrady in mind. Crazy “talented” but also very young. Van Horn is a good choice too though. He was excellent as a 4-year starter in college.
I have read things in national publications (SI or ESPN most likely) that literally suggested that had Duncan declared, he would have been the 1st pick in 1995, 1996 or ’97. The only other time I remember a prospect regarded that highly was Anthony Davis, and maybe Lebron James is the other. And James was drafted at 18, as we know, and Davis was a one and done. I don’t know if there was ever a prospect I can remember who was as highly thought of as a Tim Duncan was, though. He played with 1 NBA guy in college at Wake. Kings fans might remember him: Darius Songalia.
Going back to 1990, there are literally 3 Senior prospects who were 1st ballot HoF’ers in quality or in actuality. One is Duncan, another is Gary Payton (drafted in 1990; arguably the worst draft ever if not for Payton), and the 3rd is Grant Hill who would have been if not for those horrific injuries he had in his last few years in Detroit.
And know it all’s, I did not omit Damian Lillard. He was a redshirt junior.
And yes, I thought he would be good. My top 5 in 2012 was: Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Bradley Beal, Dame and Andre Drummond.
I got receipts. It’s up to you to find them.
I remember a lot of people considering Luka a high floor-high ceiling prospect due to his skills.
Did we feel that?
From what I saw, Hali was pretty universally considered to be a roleplayer in the NBA. Nowadays, we talk about Hali being a potential multi-time all-star.
We definitely saw a lot of that. I just wasn’t one of them. I’ve been pushing the BBIQ-is-a-better-indicator-of-upside-than-athleticism for a while now. As such, I never saw Haliburton as a lower ceiling prospect.
IIRC, Hali was ranked fairly high in our mock draft, but it was also considered a fairly weak draft.
Yeah, I know Adamsite was really pushing him up the board. I think he had him at 1. I had him at 2. I don’t remember exactly where he ended up. Around 6 maybe?
IIRC, I had him at #3. I don’t remember where he ended up, but it was easily higher than #12.
I was reading scouting reports on various prospects & a writer for SB Nation’s Pistons blog actually compared Murray to Hali in that way.
I mentioned the other day that Murray is the power forward version of Halee but I think he will help us even more
It’s really hard to compare/comp ball-handlers to non-ball-handlers, but they certainly have a number of things in common in terms of age, generalized impact, well-rounded skillsets, etc.
That what I mean, regarded as a solid player, good bbiq, older, good all around game, blossomed sooh year and not seen as a future all star. Then he comes to the NBA and just gets better and add value. I think Murray will be a good 3 rd option, will play good team D, be able to score inside and C&S, also will complement Sabonis. I just see lots of positives and think his ceiling is better than a Miles Bridges, but a little bigger.
I am really high on him!
That all sounds about right.
A sidenote about their ages without a point. Haliburton was on the young side for a sophomore draft prospect. Murray is on the old side. Were the 2020 draft held at the normal time, Haliburton would have been roughly 20 years and 4 months old. Keegan will be 21 years and 10 months old.
100%
Yup. Murray again. I feel he’s the only one that can step right in and perform next season, which is why I think Monte is going to take him. He’s the safe pick and known commodity, much like Hali and Mitchell.
Agree. Arguably BPA, definitely best fit at this point/fills a huge need and more college experience.
One thing that I am definitely not guilty of here is overthinking. Mine is the simplest of thoughts, in that I think that Ivey will be a better NBA player than Murray. I would be happy to see either in a Kings uni, FWIW.
For sure, not saying that everyone who prefers someone else is overthinking it.
I am saying that if all things are equal, bumping down Murray on the “low ceiling” stuff is overthinking it.
Of course people (and the Kings) may value someone a lot higher and that’s totally reasonable.
I’m a Sharpe guy, while acknowledging it’s wild flippin swing. I see why people could be in on Murray before SHarpe. I get it. But I don’t think it should be shocking that the board chose Sharpe at #4.
Age is a real thing when drafting and projecting…Murray will be nearly 22 by draft time. I went back and looked at the last 7-8 drafts and which players selected between #1-15 were at least 21 at the time of the draft.
There were 18 players…not one All Star or probably even a projected All Star in those 18. Some nice players…Mikal Bridges, Cam Johnson and DeAndre Hunter probably the 3 best.
There was also a group of Buddy Hield, Davion Mitchell, Cauley Stein, McDermott, Toppin and Hachimura. Then there were some real busts too.
I think a lot of data would point to older players taken in the lottery just don’t pan out into major impact guys and definitely not franchise guys. There is a reason these GM’s skew for younger guys and it’s not because they feel like gambling with their job. It’s just an actual better chance to land a franchise player, even if that isn’t a great likelihood, like Sharpe’s case. Would we trade the #4 pick for Mikal Bridges or Hunter? Maybe? But those are the best case scenarios among older lottery picks in recent years.
All that said, each team has different particular needs. Lottery teams are usually looking for high end/franchise changing talent…like the Kings. Thus the reason I think there is a Sharpe camp, even if it is terrifying.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Damn…shoulda seen that one coming
Never doubt Sims smartassery.
Throwin’ Shaed
Either your data’s wrong the data on the Pistons blog is wrong. It said players such as Curry, Lillard, Horford, McCollum & Kemba were top 10 picks who were at least 21 on draft day.
Those were all prior to “the past 7-8 drafts” weren’t they?
Last I checked ; ) Also almost none of those guys are playing predominantly off the ball like Murray would be either.
That feels like a difference, without spending too much time to think about why right now.
Horford’s definitely been an off-ball player. However, it seems like Murray isn’t as good of a passer as Horford.
Ah. I missed the past 7-8 drafts part.
Again you guys need to listen to McCaffery’s 28 minute reasons that the Kings should pick Murray. It is not bias but straight forward. He addresses the point that Murray is 22. My goosh he probably would play 3 years and then retire.
If you think most arguments here centered around the potential problem with drafting a 22 year old in top 5 is because he might play 3 less years, your not following the board or topic well.
agree
Looks like the safe comment is the star comment.
I feel like this is too high for Sharpe. If you want high-upside go with Ivey. Murray is the safest pick. Sharpe has too many red flags for me. There is just not enough film against high-level competition.
This is my current board.
Smith Jr.
Holmgren
Banchero
Murray
Griffin
Ivey
Mathurin
I can’t place Sharpe among the list until I’ve seen him against similar talent, but he’s probably in the top 6 with a good workout showing.
Ivey, Mathurin, and below, I would be shopping high and low, for an experienced starter.
Sochan, Duren, Williams, Eason, Brown, Dieng, Agbaji, Baldwin Jr., and Moore, are all players I’d be interested in adding, individually, to the roster, for commensurate value, or at appropriate draft positions.
Going Murray again today. He checks many boxes for being a solid NBA player for many years.
I just don’t get the Ivey love. I see a fast guy that does well in transition, a poor shooter, subpar passer, and below average defender. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the vast majority of offensive possessions are played in the half court, and we have seen this team struggle execute that way for years. Maybe with Sabonis that will change, and I don’t see Ivey contributing much there.
I think people see Donovan Mitchell in him. Ivey actually shot better than Donovan in college.
I am scared of Ivey’s bust potential, but I could also see him becoming a Donovan Mitchell type.
He just hasn’t shown any of the in-between game and shot diversity that Mitchell did, which is a big part of what makes Mitchell dynamic. Mitchell was also miles better as a defender in college.
That’s not to say Ivey CAN’T become great. Stranger things have happened. But right now his status is built almost entirely on this athleticism.
yeah
Only if you only look at 3pt% on the page. If you look at shot types and way they got those shots, Donovan looked like a better bet to become an impactful NBA shooter/scorer. Ivey’s 3pt % is built on wide open set shots. He hasn’t shown much/any ability to create space off the dribble and pull-up, which, to me was the eye opening element to Mitchell’s game (and Edwards). Mitchell and Edwards showed an ability to create a TON of space off the dribble, rise up cleanly, and shoot.
I’m not sure when I’m going to start voting for Sochan yet but my god man, that dude would be a huge GET for the kings in this draft. If they trade down in the 7ish range and acquire a starting caliber player I am all in on Sochan being the selection.
watch his strength and weakness video. I can’t remember the last time I saw someone get after it on defense the way that dude does. He’d be a fan favorite very quick and if he can get his shot more consistent (arch on the shot is nice, mechanics look solid but needs improvement) he could be very similar to a Miles bridges. Another comparison for him… He seems like he has the best chance of being and Draymomd Green type player. Which obviously would be huge. Sochan is my 2022 draft crush!
I like him too, but am just terrified of his offensive game. He seems like the PF version of Tony Allen.
That’s why I prefer Tari Eason to Sochan. I think Eason has a more versatile all-around game while still providing good defense.
Same, and FWIW I have Eason much higher on my board than most, including ahead of Griffin and Mathurian. I really value two way players.
Agreed. Especially when you watch the playoffs, their value cannot be underestimated.
Word on the street is that Eason has just been brutally bad in workouts so far.
Really? I hadn’t heard that. Where has he worked out and also, why haven’t the Kings brought in a lottery prospect in for a workout yet?
I’ll see if I can go find it again. I would think Eason would be a much stronger workout player than live-action player. But….
Okay, take it with a grain of salt. It was Stayman from the SI Mavs Blog. Said he heard Eason had terrible workouts with 2 mid-1st round teams and those teams will pass on him. It was in an interview where he was asked for draft day surprises. He said 1) Daniels goes in the top 6. And 2) Eason falls, maybe even to the 2nd round.
I certainly wouldn’t bet on that, but as you know, I personally wouldn’t be taking Eason in the lottery.
I just found this:
Though I have no idea how reliable it is and it already looks like it’s 10 days out of date.
According to this, it looks like Eason has at least worked out for ATL, which would qualify as a mid-1st team.
I’m going to torture you with this forever. Just like you telling me to ignore that Giannis kid because all he did was play at the HS levels of Greek basketball.
I still resent you for that, btw.
I read this somewhere on the internet:
Jeremy Sochan is Precious Achiuwa with a Kelly Oubre style
Nah, one of the primary reasons Sochan is intriguing is his facilitation/passing potential. Neither Precious nor Oubre have ever had that as part of their profile.
A highish end draft profile comp probably looks a lot like Aaron Gordon.
The guy always looks slightly out of control. I get nervous seeing him play.
Then don’t watch Tari Eason!
I won’t!!!
Let’s pick a player we’ve seen 3 minutes of footage from in the last year. Sounds great.
Like others have said, I was pretty surprised Sharpe won out at 4. Sharpe is intriguing but there’s just so much unknown about him. The good thing is that the Kings are in a great position to try to gather as much info as they can about him, as 4 is probably the highest he’s looking at realistically being drafted. I’m of the opinion that if the Kings do pick Sharpe at 4 that I’d be more comfortable with it, since to me that means that the Kings saw enough that they liked to take that big swing and risk, especially with Monte in the final year of his contract.
Still, I’m going to continue to go with Ivey here, as I think he’s the Best Player Available
I don’t think Ivey will be the best player available for another few picks at least.
Yeah. If Monte is comfortable with Sharpe at #4, then I’ll be excited.
And, yes, #4 is as high as he could realistically go.
Ditto for GRIFFIN!
Murray: good 3-point shooting on large volume: good defender; size; rising star, continual improvement; coachable; hard worker; may have very high ceiling. Ivey: no defense, no shot. I went Murray.
Murray yesterday, Murray today, Murray until he gets picked.
I might be as excited about Murray as anyone in this draft. Very high confidence in his floor as a high level starter.
Murray
Can he play Stretch 4?
Totally off topic, but this randomly came into my head so just thought I’d ask:
Are we going to get the Nostradumbass winner for this year? Just wanted to know who ended up winning since the Google Sheet link disappeared after a while.
They stopped the count?
I don’t know (and a more accurate phrase has never been written). Sharpe may be the right call at #4 (or 3, or 2, or 1, or 14 or…), but I can’t help but have this Sidd Finch vibe tug at me (look it up, youngsters). I mean, I guess we knock Ivey for his efficiency (in spite of his true shooting percentage being better than Jabari or Paolo…Chet’s is just plain nuts), and we can’t knock anything about Sharpe’s game because we don’t really know anything about it (at least not compared to the other prospects in the draft).
I had Sharpe 6th on my list, because there were five guys that I thought were promising enough to not throw caution at the wind (Smith, Holmgren, Banchero, Ivey, Murray). If history has taught me anything, I’m going to be wrong about at least some of these guys, but I can’t help but feel that Sharpe is more about the wish of the unknown miracle.
Taking Ivey again here, with Murray to follow.
And 1 – I love the different prospects in this draft and what it has done for the conversation around here. There are a myriad of skillsets, sizes and shapes, and with that has come a wide array of takes, likes and dislikes. I am learning more about these prospects every day, and I thank everyone that is participating in the conversation in helping me learn more about all of these guys (Sharpe notwithstanding).
The pool of players this year is interesting. Lots of different skills, and with the Kings needing basically everything for the roster, our draft philosophies are being discussed a lot more. Good stuff with this series thus far.
I take Keegan Murray at this slot. Can we add Benedict mathurin on next? He’s my pick tomorrow if Murray is off the board.
Mathurin, Davis and Eason would be my next adds, though there are 3-4 guys on the current ballot that I might take first.
Yeah, johnny Davis measured very well at the combine. He’s someone to look at if moving on down.
Eason should be on there also.
Can’t believe Mathurin isn’t already on there.
I like him. Where do you see the over/under on where he is drafted? I would put it at 9.5.
I could imagine him going at seven or eight, possibly six if some of the guys higher up slip a bit after meeting teams. He’s a great shooter, has amazing athleticism, and he may be the strongest player in the lottery. Mathurin could very well be explosive in the NBA.
If a swap was done with New Orleans, I’d think the odds would be decent to still get him.
That sounds about right to me. Guys that have big hype, high highlight fodder games in the tourney tend to leap up the boards in the wake of those games, then slowly drift back down before settling somewhere between the pre-hype slot and the peak.
He’s my 7th rated prospect, so I’ll put him at 7.5. I have him ahead of Daniels and Griffin. With or without trades, I have him in the 6-10 range. I think he was always going to be a lottery pick, then during the tourney played himself into a top-10 pick.
Full stop, I’m a huge Arizona basketball fan (went to school there) so I know I’ll be higher on him than most.
I think mathurin gets drafted before a.j. griffin. Griffin’s injury history scares me.
Agreed.
Thank you to you & Slamson for the perspective. Greatly appreciated!
And BHE, of course.
Before you decide on Sharpe, I recommend considering another player, nicknamed “the chair”. The Athletic posted a detailed breakdown of his (it’s) game and how we might have been overlooking him (it) as a potentially elite prospect.
Sharpe is an odd choice. Especially for fans who really know nothing but what’s said through the filter of heavily influenced writers. I picked and continue to pick Murray. He’s known to be good at basketball. I just feel like “upside” is way over valued. I could be talked into Ivey here as well and I have both ahead of Sharpe.
What influences are so heavily impacting these writers?
It does seem like an odd way to say “people who consider various sources and expert opinions in their opinion building.”
Sources and opinions are influences, which is different from being able to evaluate actual competitive basketball.
Yes, and smart people use all resources available. Including both evaluating actual competitive basketball whenever possible AND seeking out additional opinions and analyses. Make no mistake, nobody here on this site is a good enough scout or has enough access to information to build a well-informed opinion solely on their own observations. And, of course, high level scouts would never build opinions solely on their own observations without holding it up to and considering other opinions to check for personal biases, things they missed, or simply to continue vetting and honing their own process.
Internet influencers. As opposed to evaluating actual competitive basketball.
Sharpe’s agents. I’m sure these guys provide access to their players for hype from reporters. I mean he hasn’t played basketball and has avoided playing basketball, presumably on the advice of his agents/handlers. He was eligible to play for Kentucky, didn’t play. He could have scrimmaged at the combine, didn’t play. He’s being hyped up and it’s working so he’s avoiding playing because they view he has more downside by doing so. As long as the hype train can entice people into thinking he’s good, it’s better to avoid playing, lest the competitive environment exposes a player that is not as good as advertised. I’d need a lot more to go on when using this pick. Murray has shown he’s a really good player in competitive situations, as has Ivey. #4 is just too high to take a flier on a player that … hasn’t played basketball competitively at a level as high as D1 NCAA…ever.
Keegan Murray. I have him in the same tier as Ivey and I think Mr. Murray is a way better fit. I’m a big believer in BPA (like a lot of people here), but I don’t think you should completely ignore fit, either. In the NFL you have 22 starters. 5 in the NBA. So I think fit is actually a much stronger argument for the NBA draft than it is for the NFL draft. And at this point on the Big Board, you need to really start considering fit alongside BPA because the blue-chip talent is gone.
Please add Benedict Mathurin!
I would think most of us here agree when you are picking 4th BPA should be the guiding factor. That being said, I think you’d really have a player ranked much higher to completely ignore fit. I see Murray, Sharpe and Ivey at that second tier, therefore fit does have to come into play a bit.
In the case of Ivey, it’s more than just a possible redundancy with Fox. Monte has constructed. roster that is heavy with combo guards. Fox, Holiday, TD, Mitchell are on the books for next year and DDV is a RFA, that I would assume Monte wants back. If the Kings were to draft Ivey it pretty much forces Monte’s hand to make moves elsewhere, maybe even letting DDV walk for nothing.
From all that, if Ivey is the guy at #4, I’d hope the Kings brass really has him ranked a solid tier above the likes of Murray, Sharpe or even Chet (if he falls) to justify the roster rearranging that would be required with his selection.
To boot, drafting 3 ball handling guards in three consecutive years after you’ve handed a max contract to your lead ball handler is a bit of a head scratcher and would make me think Monte is flying by the seat of his pants a bit.
I don’t see the problem of having several combo guards, given that they can obviously play as the lead, or off the ball as shooters. Versatility, positionless basketball, blah blah blah…
I’m not advocating for or against Ivey. I do think he’s going to be a pretty good player, possibly a great one, and he may make the most sense at the time Sacramento’s number is called. McNair and his crew are most-certainly breaking any data they can get into slivers to see what’s there.
It’s not entirely out of the question that Ivey jumps into the top three, and our choice becomes abundantly obvious. I mean, not Luka-obvious, but still, an easy one.
In a league where speed and guard/perimeter play is now King, you can’t have too many perimeter players. To keep my NFL comps going, it’s like you can’t have too many playmakers on offense or pass rushers on defense. And to be honest, we are in the market for a 2 so I understand why Ivey could be the guy at 4 or 5. Maybe Davion fills the role? Or maybe he stays as the backup PG (Interestingly, I wonder if management wants to groom him to take over the starting PG position while building up Fox’s trade value). Or we sign someone like Malik Monk. Who knows if Donte is coming back after his camp expressed frustration with how he was being handled? Either way, there’s a question mark at the SG position right now so Ivey does make a lot of sense.
Ultimately, though, I agree with you that with Fox on a max and drafting guards the last two years we need to invest this pick somewhere else like at the forward position. Unless there’s a guy available at 4 that screams f*$% fit and go for BPA. It’s really easy to hyper focus on BPA. Draft season always brings out the ceiling vs floor debate. If you considered ceiling vs. floor with fit and BPA, well BPA has an incredibly high floor. Drafting 101. I just think at this juncture with what the Kings have publicly said how they are approaching next year fit is really being elevated in the draft process. And if that’s true, then finding a hybrid BPA/fit prospect that checks both boxes will be the pick, even if their standalone BPA value is lower than someone else.
RE: Sharpe is Scary.
The above link shows players who were drafted out of high school. In the 70’s there was some success (Moses Malone) and then there was a lull until 1995 with Kevin Garnett. That led to an insane hot streak of KG, Kobe, T-Mac, and Jermaine O’Neal in a short stretch. That was followed by some absolute busts (Kwame Brown!) until the league stopped the practice in 2005. Oh, and LeBron was one of those guys as well. Then there was a long stretch of the semi-pro stuff that was also not great but in recent years that’s produced RJ Hampton and LaMelo ball. I view Sharpe in that camp of people who have guidance to avoid some of the pitfalls of not going the more traditional route.
I think it’s surprising how often we’re hearing that we know nothing about Sharpe. I don’t think it’s that. I think it’s that we know as much about him as a high school player as anything else. He doesn’t have a worrying injury history. He’s viewed as an incredibly strong on-ball defender and a Ja Morant style super athlete. While he’s not a deep shooter, he’s a very creative scorer. I don’t see him as an upside guy. I see him as someone who may very well be the best player in the draft class, and simply didn’t play the most in college. Often the “best” college players are not the “best” NBA players (Jimmer!)
I think Ivey may very well be that way as well. I think the odds of this years “top 3” being the 3 best players in the draft are unlikely, and I think that someone is going to be very happy that Sharpe and/or Ivey fell to them.
This thread, naturally, is going to sound skeptical of Sharpe because 2/3 of people wanted someone else. I view that like primaries where the person who wins wasn’t necessarily the second choice for most people. And I think that Murray may very well be very very good. He screams Danny Granger, Scottie Barnes, Shane Battier. Guys you’d love to have on your team. But not someone who is going to be the alpha on a playoff team or carry a team. It’s the same gripe I have with Banchero. I think he caps out in a role like LMA or an old school PF. He could be really great. I just don’t know that he alone is dynamic enough to do it. But I feel like the floor for Shapre is peak Tyreek Evans, and his ceiling is Kobe. And if we’re keeping the 4 or trading up, I want someone who can be incredibly incredibly good, not just reliably solid and a glue guy.
I think I know what you mean with your Tyreke and Kobe comparisons. I agree that in this draft at 4 or higher it’s a unique position to really swing for the fences on a player like Sharpe. My gut tells me we won’t have a high pick for another few years at least so I would rather draft the player with the highest ceiling than the highest floor. He comes into a team with two solid guards so there’s less pressure on him to produce right away and I think that would be huge for his development.
I agree. He’s a creator without having to be a primary ball handler. He would slide in well next to Barnes, Mitchell and Fox and brings another slashing/shooting dyanmic. With Sabonis and his good court vision and rebounding, I think we just need to fill the floor with people who can do something with the ball in their hands. Another comp might be Jaylen Brown or DeMar DeRozan. I see him as a a guy who seems like he should be limited in the Moreyball world, but I think is going to just put the ball in the bucket all the time.
And do that while playing incredibly good on-ball defense.
The video I watched classified his defense as underdeveloped as in he hasn’t really learned any defensive skills. The accompanying video showed him getting blown by and being unable to keep the offensive player in front of him. Also, he’s “bouncy” and doesn’t stay down so offensive players are able to get past him on the first step.
This is and some other things ultimately tipped me away from Sharpe and towards Murray.
There are definitely conflicting reports and evidence on his defense. As such, I would personally put him in the usual bucket of high level teenage athletes with good measureables. “He has all the physical tools to be a good defender.” Guys who are actually consistently good defenders in their teens are few and far between (and that’s being VERY generous). The same basic line is the case for Smith, Ivey, Mathurin, Duran, etc. They all have attributes that should enable them to become decent to good defenders, but they haven’t really shown it yet. Their defensive ability is still mostly theoretical.
Most college programs put defense on or close to the bottom of the list. As a happened then our win loss record became much better. I coached against teams whose coach had a hard time playing an offense I but forth in defense. Now I have watched a lot of basketball and am still amazed how the fundamentals of defense is lacking in all but a few. A good point is I believe at this time the Kings have one really good defender. We all know who he is. You can”t win with one good defender. What was the Kings record last year. What has Monty been stressing shooting and DEFENSE. I use to tell my players the best way to win was keeping you player under the points you would score.The Kings better defenders.
That’s basically what the scout report said. I forget his exact words but he essentially described them as raw and undeveloped and showed several examples from (I assume) AAU game footage.
who’s better? Sharpe or Ben McLemore?
looks like he’s warning us of a possible bust.
Sharpe is definitely a boom or bust pick. He’s 6th on my list, and the overwhelming odds are that I have him rated too high. Or too low.
You could hope for a Jaylen Brown type of outcome, but it would have to be based on a lot more than the video footage we have available from high school, which I thought was uninspiring.
This also.
This. Exactly.
We don”t need to pick a boom or bust player. Keep it simple, look at the statistics.
Looking at Wiggins on the Warriors, I wonder what Ol Ben Kenobi could have turned into had he been drafted into the right organization. Obviously, Wiggins had way more success on the Wolves than Ben ever had in the pros, but if McLemore wasn’t sent to Jakku right away it’s possible he never would have been considered a bust.
It’s possible that he would’ve had more success on another team, but that seems unlikely to me due to his low BBIQ.
Wiggins was never bad. I always liked that trade for the dubs. The TWolves were their farm team.
I agree, great trade for the Minnesota Athletics. Even without the draft picks the way it has turned out…
Nah. Back when Wiggins was putting up a < .550 TS% while taking 15+ shots a game, putting up as many TOs as ASTs, and handing out easy buckets like candy he was actively bad. In Golden State, they pulled him back into an extremely narrow role in a system that allows him to play to his strengths. He’s basically what Harrison Barnes was for them years ago. Somewhere around the 5-7th best player on the team. Basically, “hit the open 3 when we give it to you, cut if you see an opening, play hard on defense, and don’t do anything dumb.” The All-Star nod this year was pretty comical. It’s really hard to make big changes after a successful season, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Warriors sell “high” on him this offseason and let some other team worry about his potential extension, then let Moody/Kuminga/Other potential acquisition compete for his role.
Excellent comment, a lot of nuance in essentially two paragraphs
How would I know. I”ve never seen Sharpe play against a really good team.
I think Ivey is the most talented prospect left. He has a chance to be a #1 scorer. Now, I do have some concerns with fit on this roster.
How about defense?
Not that I chime in much here, but me down as strongly in the camp of Keegan Murray. I love the refinement in his game, the maturity, the fact that he will work to be a two way player. That’s the kind of guy I want in my core. He could be like a wing version of Tim Duncan. Quiet and unflashy but steady and extremely effective.
I’m going to be a fan of whichever team takes him.
I’m taking Ivey here. I can’t help but see Ja Morant LITE in his potential. It’s superstar potential or bust for me. Not worried about fit with Fox. I like Ivey’s potential and the passion he plays with. This team is full of mild mannered players, Ivey plays with the type of passion and energy that will energize the crowd and teammates.
What about Davion?
I’m surprised so many people are surprised about Sharpe.
It’s much easier to evaluate the Kings current situation, as a franchise, than S. Sharpe as a prospect. Knowing the Kings situation, it would be difficult to blame them for not wanting to gamble that kind of draft capital on a relative unknown.
I wouldn’t blame them for not picking him. In fact, I fully expect them not to.
Would you pick him if it was your money to lose?
Yes.
NO.
Why would you want to do this?
Well I was thinking Ivey here but after reading the comments and rewatching some videos of Murray, now I’m thinking he’s the next best on the board
Hey Rebuild,
Thought you might like to see this. Looks like he’s been working on his shooting form a bit:
https://twitter.com/swishcultures_/status/1529954387958738944?s=20&t=luIsATdjxOcuF9gDwoCcdw
Zona fan here. Surprised about his shooting touch in that video but outside of that dude is an absolute monster. He completely dominated the first two games of the tourney and all year was overshadowed by Mathurin but a huge reason we won the Pac-12 and earned a #1 seed. Since we jumped up to 4 and are, barring a trade back, ahead of Mathurin’s range I would be stoked if we trade up for Koloko using the 3 second rounders. Just a total college fan to my pro team fan unlikely trade scenario.
Yeah, I think the essentially 1-on-none format is being especially kind to him in terms of his outside shot. In game, last season he had absolutely zero touch on his shot. Now, it could be improved. But the fact that he releases his guide hand early means he would struggle to maintain his touch and accuracy in game situations where he’s shooting with contact, strong contests, and less controlled movement. I suspect he’s working on that, because there are a couple shots in the video where he doesn’t release his guide hand early. His biggest issue IMO, is that, at the moment, he’s limited to the interior, but he also REALLY struggles with physicality.
Ultimately, I think he’d be a really good get at 37. He’s likely to go before that, but I don’t think it’s out of the question that he’s still there.
For what it’s worth, relative to likely pick slot, I may like Dalen most out of those 3.
No doubt he struggles against more physical players and teams. Against TCU and Houston in the round of 32 and sweet 16, he was definitely bothered. But, what I loved, is he played through it and still had impactful games. Much more so against TCU, he straight up battled in that game against their big man who was also going off. That was fun to watch. The whole team fell apart against Houston so I can’t really fault him for that. That was like watching men play against boys. Could be there at 37 but I’d put money down on him going in the first round.
Yeah, as I said, I expect him to go in the first. And I think somewhere in the 20s is probably the right place for him.
Missed your comment about Dalen. I like him too and I hope he stays for one more year. Think it would be great for his development.
Recent quote: “I owe it to myself to be here,” Terry said Thursday at the NBA Draft Combine in Chicago, per Sports Illustrated’s Kevin Sweeney. “If I can sneak in there and be a sleeper, be a first rounder, that’s what I’ll do. But if not, I’m going to go back to Tommy [Lloyd], we’re going to have a big smile and have a better year.”
Went with Ivey here. Just like Sharpe, I believe he has star potential and have that “it” factor when watching him play. I like his competitive edge and I think those type of guys tends to succeed and less to be a bust.
I think it’s best to trade down to 6 if all of these guys are this close. We would pick up a proven vet as insurance and then pick up whoever is left out of these three guys – and only pull the trigger on draft night if one of Paolo, Smith or Chet don’t drop.
It takes two to swap, but if several prospects remain bunched up as far as who should go at four, five or six, I’d be willing to drop as far as eight. As you said, there will be a solid prospect there (Mathurin? I could live with it.), and the lower the swap, the better the asset coming back should be.
Details, it’s all about the details.
I would go down to five and try to trade and get someone, If you go down to #6 you will probably lose Murray.
I’d be fine w/the Kings going down to #6 since I’d be fine w/them drafting Smith, Banchero, Holmgren, Sharpe, Murray or Ivey. Trading #4 for #6 & either Brogdon or Duarte sounds good to me.
It doesn’t get talked a lot here, but I put a lot of stock into measurables and natural gifts. What is everyone’s opinion on how teams should draftor how you would draft? For me, it runs something like 60% measurables, 30%, basketball skills and iq, 10% perceived upside versus floor.
Did the draft combine change anyone’s opinion of the prospects after releasing the measurements, shuttle times, agility course times, etc.
The draft combine will shift my opinion on some players a bit. Usually based on what their measureables say about their likelihood to play up or down the defensive spectrum at times. For example, I saw Jalen Williams as a pretty pure SG, but his 7’2 wingspan and good standing vertical suggest he can probably slide up to defending SFs for long stretches. Which definitely makes his other skills more valuable when you think about the types actions you can use him in on offense if the other team is forced to play a SF on him.
For the most part though, for me, measureables are more like a cost of entry. Are they big/athletic enough to enable them to play a role where they can succeed in an NBA role and their skills can play. So my percentages would definitely skew more towards skills and IQ than yours.
I don’t remember when I first heard you can’t teach height, but you can teach someone how to shoot. Extrapolate that out to wingspan, speed, etc. That kind of thinking has stuck with me on the draft.
Sure. But as I said, height is about having enough height to play the right role for your skills. It’s the cost of entry. We aren’t comparing a 6’4 guy with center skills to a 7’2 guy with center skills. Once they cross the, say 6’10 threshold to be TALL ENOUGH to compete with other Center-sized guys, then it’s all about skills and BBIQ. I mean, Sabonis is a short, relatively slow, NBA C with a short wingspan. He is also an excellent NBA C.
Standing reach, wingspan, and hand size are the only measurements I really care about…and shuttle times can enlightening if you are concerned about foot speed for a certain prospect.
But how should we measure these prospects against other golfers?
By height (in shoes).
In NBA Live in gm mode?
Skills & BBIQ will always be the most important factor for me. As long as a guy has good measurables, that’s good enough for me. Where the Kings draft affects how I feel about the ceiling vs. floor debate.
Totally valid. Let’s hope the king’s choice pans out.
I’m just kind of spit ballin here but for me it’s basketball IQ 70%, skills 20% and measurables 10%
mostly kidding but I do REALLY VALUE basketball IQ. In all seriousness I think measurables are important and b ball IQ is what separates the stars from the rotation guys.
After reading the arguments, I prefer Murray. Ivey’s close to Murray for me, but the positional scarcity argument is particularly compelling.
I would have taken Murray as 3rd, 4Th and Niw 5th, I am on the just say not to Chet wagon
I’m still in a
Why?, might you ask (I know you don’t care but I will tell you anyway). The perplexing duality of this image is that it denotes both Keegan Murray and a nod to the former Murray State Racer, Ja Morant of whom Jaden Ivey’s ceiling is oft compared.
Keegan Murray, to me is the clear choice here. He’s got game that appears imminently transferable to the NBA level. The promise of next level success is reasonable, and unquestioned. The only question proposed is – is he Star Quality? Is that Mikal Bridges or Paul Pierce? Paul George or Otto Porter, Jr? Answer unknown. What we do know is that the dude is a player. On the Kings, he will have a chance to get plenty of PT and that will translate to stats and stats translate to All-Rookie Teams and are a stepping stone to starter and maybe, just maybe, star.
Jaden Ivey – could be Tyreke Evans. A guy who could get anywhere on the floor but wasn’t a distributing point guard and was a scoring, not a shooting, shooting guard. But what a grown ass man.
Ja-den could have enough Ja to be Morant-esque. To me, those comparisons are like those in the late 80s-early 90s when each prospect was “could be the next Jordan”. Nah, Ja is special – Jaden Ivey could be, but more unlikely than likely.
Keegan Murray – I can see what he does, and I like what I see.
Jaden Ivey – he looks the part, I sure hope he can play the part.
The floor versus ceiling debate happens every draft and will continue to humble and frustrate us all.
Keegan impresses me as the type player we need to draft. While I am all in on him. I am also greatly impressed by Monte so I feel comfortable by his choice.
whether it be Ivey, Sochan, Sharpe. thats three players i feel are all going to help this team win. In addition to the big 3 and Murray We have 7 players to choose from and will have the opportunity to decide on 4 of them. Go Kings
It appears we are simpatico – I trust Monte, with the disclaimer that we can only hope, but shakily believe, that the Ranadive factor (not just King Vivek, but Prince Aneel as well) does not lay too heavily on his performance. We will never know, and either way – Monte’s name is on the door, so he gets the blame equally with any glory.
The Sacramento Kings have not shown themselves to be a palace of player development. The thought that a player who needs grooming and direction and culture to
mature into a Star level talent can do that in Sac is a “maybe this time” possibility but history is against that as a probability.
Maybe the Kings aren’t the worst (uh, which Kings draft choice is still with the team after more than two seasons? Just Fox) at player development but it’s a maybe that they are in consideration. Best (or top 10) is not a choice.
Foolish as it is, knowing that Kings are not a Free Agent destination, one would think a clever franchise would be all in on player development, especially with a G League team, but alas, Vivek is not that brand of smart.
For the draft – keep trying to hit doubles and singles and hope you stretch some to triples and maybe an infield home run. Swinging for the fences and striking out is a worse outcome, IMO.
He’s easily the most Kangz pick in this draft to me. Yes he has potential, yes he’s athletic, no he hasn’t shown any of that at high levels yet.
Its the degenerate gambler Kangz lotto ticket moment. You’ve got even money on a good horse, but man if that 99-1 3 legged wonder hits damn can you imagine how awesome that would be.
Bottom line even if he’s great eventually the kings don’t have 3-4 years to find out. If he’s not contributing to playoffs this year does it even matter?
Except, that’s not what the Kings have done. In 6 of the last 10 drafts, the Kings have taken a Sophomore or older (4 Juniors or older). That feels on the high side to me for a team perennially drafting in the lottery where one and done is the name of the game.
They’ve gone for the “good quality horse” and for the most part it hasn’t panned out. Is that why they are where they are? Of course that’s not the only reason, but it may speak to part of it.
Kings have been at the point for several years now where they have some good players (not enough), but the reason they hover around 30-35 wins and 7-12 in lottery is because they lack a franchise player. Fox and Sabonis are a cut beneath that to me.
With this high a pick, I’m totally fine swinging for whoever Monte thinks has the biggest potential to carry a franchise. Murray, Sharpe, Ivey (I don’t care particularly..personally Sharpe if I had to pick)
In the last 4 drafts there have been 20 top 5 picks. I would say 13-14 of them look like they could be Stars for their team and about 50% you would confidently identify as their current to future franchise player. Almost every one of them was one and done. So yeah, it does scare me a bit to talk about a near 22 year old Keegan Murray at pick #4, because he displayed great college production. Totally different story at 6-7. My attitude has changed a bit on this, but I think it’s largely because of where the Kings are picking and the fact they moved up.
If we are talking about adding a guy who will be good, but may lack star potential to this team, I think you are going to be debating if that player in 3 years has raised your floor from 32 wins to 38 wins. To me there is a big difference drafting 9th (trying to get a solid contributor) and drafting 4th in what feels like a deep draft.
All valid points and I agree with some.
But I don’t think with the exception of Hali and Davion they have selected the “good quality horse”. Bagley was definitely the long shot that had to accomplish all these things to fit and we all know that story vs Luka and Luka was a pretty “good quality horse”.
Bagley was a widely considered consensus Top 5 pick and most mocks had him top 3. He had a 1st team All American season of production at Duke. Not all “quality horses” pan out and are as low floor as we tend to think. Kind of my point.
T-Rob, Cauley-Stein, Stauskas, Jimmer all had good to great college production and lots of tape to watch. I guess that’s what I am getting at by picking a quality/proven horse…theoretically.
My larger point is that just because guys produced in college doesn’t inherently make them a better pick and I especially feel that way when drafting super high, where I am looking/hoping for a franchise player. The last 7-8 drafts have had 18 players that were 21 or older when drafted in lottery. Zero All Star appearances amongst that group and only a few high end starters.
Don’t even dislike Murray (probably 5-6 on my board), but at 4 I think you swing for it, even if it’s only a 25-30% chance of nailing a franchise cornerstone…which is the biggest thing the Kings are missing and have no major way of acquiring outside of the draft. Not happening in free agency or you have to dump a boatload of draft picks and any young talent they do have to get one.
The only real franchise players the Kings have ever had are Richmond, (had to trade a top 3 pick player for), Webber (nobody in today’s NBA making dumb trades like that anymore) and Cousins (Risky top 5 pick and I very begrudgingly include him as a “franchise player”).
I just don’t see how the Kings have a reasonable chance at acquiring a player like the Luka, Taytum, Morants of the world without taking a swing on a top end pick like this or trading away their whole team/assets for some player and they then have nothing left around them. Sure you can get extraordinarily lucky a nail a Kawhi or Giannis later in draft, but that is like playing the lottery to try and pay your mortgage each month.
Main reasons I am against Murray at 4, not that their isn’t plenty to like about his game. Hell maybe he is a franchise player, but I don’t see that and I think most don’t either. If Monte takes him at 4, I'[m sure I will quickly be on board and probably like his game…but it doesn’t make me feel more confident about the Kings getting over .500 in the next few years.
Not all directed at you Hella…it’s late and I just got typing…I’ll change my screen name to Kings4ever : )
Solid points. Sharpe or Murray at 4. Either way I’ll be happy. Ivey, not so much and that’s not to say he’s not good and could be excellent. There’s 3 guys to choose from at 4. One is a home run swing, one has an all around game and fits exactly what you need and the other creates a log jam without the all around game.
I’d say Sharpe & Ivey would both be HR swings. The difference between them is that Ivey isn’t a good fit.
But if you become Kings4ever, who will become your pretty damn clever S/N?
Bagley wasn’t a “quality horse”. Due to his lack of skills, I thought he was the 9th best prospect in his draft.
DMC wasn’t a franchise player. If he’d been a franchise player, the Kings would’ve snapped their playoff drought while he was w/the Kings.
I agree that the Kings need to try to draft a star at #4. I think it’s possible that Murray will be a star, but that’s his least likely outcome (though that’s probably true of every prospect who’s likely to be available at #4).
Hooray for Murray!
I went with Sharpe at 4 but couldn’t comment. It really comes down to what is percieved as his ridiculous upside. I’ll admit that if I was in Monte’s shoes I don’t think I could take that swing. But I absolutely could see one of the other top 3 teams taking that chance. I picked Ivey for 5, based on similar reasons, ridiculous (though not as high, IMO, upside.) I also wouldn’t pick Ivey if I were in Monte’s shoes. But allegedly, they’re the top 5 talents on the board.
I know there’s not much tape of Sharpe, but he just has the “IT” factor. It’s a “gut feeling”.He has the measurables, the skillset, star potential, and we need a wing. Murray is a young HB, and Ivey is another Fox. My dream scenario would be trade down to Detroit and pick up Grant and the #5( hoping Detroit picks Ivey). Would love Roddy in the later round.
Wasn’t this yesterday’s post? I know, I’ve have a few drinks today, but I’m 99% sure that this Shadeon Sharpe torture was yesterday’s business. That means, the the voting results are a sham. It’s just a provocation. Sorry Aykis. Just stop this nonsense and draft the best player for the success of the team, please. Basketball 3.0 does not mean perpetual torture for the Sacramento fanbase. thank you.
I’m pretty sure Akis clearly stated that the voting ended at a certain time. I’ll trust that he kept his word and the voting did stop when it was scheduled to, even if there’s no new article today. If coming to this site seems like torture, I’d think there’s a pretty simple solution.
The voting ended at 5am Saturday. They just aren’t putting new posts up because they are out living their lives.
On a somewhat unrelated topic, and maybe this has been addressed on TKH before, but I think it’s a shame the nba does not follow the nfl off-season model and start free agency before the draft. Every year nfl teams make free agency decisions that necessarily informs what they do n the draft. In the Kings case, for the sake of discussion, what if they pulled off a miracle and signed Zach LaVine in free agency. Although I’ve personally been a Sharpe/Ivey guy, in that situation the clear choice would be to take Murray or trade back or trade out. Obviously Monte cannot make any assumptions as to how free agency will go given the kings track record when he makes the pick. There has been a lot of good discussion about the Sharpe/Ivey/Murray debate, but if I’m making that decision I would want to make it after free agency, not before. Even if the Kings do nothing in free agency, as a GM I would want to have that information before making the pick. All of this highlights to me that the process is ass backwards. Maybe I’m missing something here.
That’d be nice. I’ve read that the Kings drafted TRob b/c they were afraid they’d lose Jason Thompson in free agency, which is sad on so many levels. They wouldn’t have drafted TRob if free agency had started before the draft.
Badge Legend