Kings 2016 Draft

Post #661 » by **bwgood77** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:12 pm

I thought the trade was bad for you guys when it was made, because I didn't think Papagiannis would go nearly that high or the 28th pick would be worth a ton. But given the fact that you got Labissiere, who many Suns fans wanted to trade for the 8th pick and take, and Papa AND Bogdanovich, it worked out really well for you guys, especially since Chriss is super risky. Skal is too, but of course he was ranked top 2 to begin the season and Chriss probably wasn't even top 50.

If you want to see Bogdan highlights and thoughts on him, here is a thread, with him hitting some unbelievable long game winning shots. viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1433509

sacking123 · Post #662 » by **sacking123** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:44 pm

I'm more than fine with the draft at this stage. I think a rotation of bigs in Cousins, WCS, Papa, Skal will be decent. Sign Acy as vet insurance and it will be great.
Now where it gets muddled is KK. If he doesn't get traded that is. I am convinced he is gone, and with Vlade saying Rondo could be back I wonder if he is going all in on a SG? Gay/KK/Ben for a starting SG/disgruntled star etc?
Rondo/Collison
?/Curry/Richardson
Casspi/Vet/Butler
WCS/Acy
Cousins/Papa/Skal

Post #663 » by **City of Trees** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:52 pm

Idea: Grizz s&t Conley for Gay... I'm all for this

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

SacKingZZZ · Post #664 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 11:55 pm

What is Joergers stance on Gay? I'm sure as a coach when he took over in Memphis he had to miss him just a little.

Post #665 » by **City of Trees** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:01 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:What is Joergers stance on Gay? I'm sure as a coach when he took over in Memphis he had to miss him just a little.

More importantly what's Gay' s stance on the Kings. I'd say not too good. Regardless of feelings I still would like to see him moved. Cousins and Gay doesn't work. Neither plays all out and it hurts the team.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

SacKingZZZ · Post #666 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:58 am

Cousins and Gay worked fine before Malone got the rug pulled. The thing about Gay is the Kings can't just let that offensive production walk. The best chance would have been to find a guard or wing, but this draft didn't yield the many possibilities by either trade or draft. Getting Hield would have made Gay more expendable, trading for Teague, etc. Now there are some limited options to replace his offensive abilities.

teerfour+40LG · Post #667 » by **teerfour+40LG** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:09 am

City of Trees wrote: Cousins and Gay doesn't work.

But they clearly did when Isaiah Thomas was around. They even worked with Darren Collison. The problem has always been terrible, unfitting supporting players. Remember, Carl Landry, Derrick Williams, and Travis Outlaw played the most minutes off the bench a couple years ago. We had nothing behind Gay, Cousins, and Collison or Isaiah.

SacKingZZZ wrote:trading for Teague

There's no point in trading for Teague if we get rid of Gay. We need to recreate the big three we had with Isaiah Thomas, Gay, and Cousins, and it's not possible if we dump Gay. If we trade Gay for Teague, we're in the same boat, still missing a third guy.

Post #668 » by **City of Trees** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:38 am

Gay is turning 30 and his decline will begin... we have already seen Gay' s best years, no need to commit further time to him. Dueces. Besides I'm sure he wants to leave Sac anyways.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

Kings2013 · Post #669 » by **Kings2013** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:03 am

City of Trees wrote:Gay is turning 30 and his decline will begin... we have already seen Gay' s best years, no need to commit further time to him. Dueces. Besides I'm sure he wants to leave Sac anyways.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

Why don't Cousins and Gay work, because Karl said so?

The team had statistically one of the best starting in the units the year before last, and I don't mind seeing what Joerger can do (tough to judge the Karl era)

Besides, I don't think his market value will allow him to be moved for a lot. Reportedly the Pelicans wouldn't part with an expiring Anderson in the middle of last year. Due to his reputation, which still hovers around his name due to pre Sacramento days, there is still a bit of a stigma to him. He's a solid all around vet and I don't think the Kings will get more by moving him

SF isn't a problem for the team IMO. Other issues, but we will see how Vlade handles it

blind prophet · Post #670 » by **blind prophet** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:07 am

We don't have enough people capable of creating their own offense to move Rudy.

SacKingZZZ · Post #671 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:34 am

teerfour+40LG wrote:
City of Trees wrote: Cousins and Gay doesn't work.

But they clearly did when Isaiah Thomas was around. They even worked with Darren Collison. The problem has always been terrible, unfitting supporting players. Remember, Carl Landry, Derrick Williams, and Travis Outlaw played the most minutes off the bench a couple years ago. We had nothing behind Gay, Cousins, and Collison or Isaiah.

SacKingZZZ wrote:trading for Teague

There's no point in trading for Teague if we get rid of Gay. We need to recreate the big three we had with Isaiah Thomas, Gay, and Cousins, and it's not possible if we dump Gay. If we trade Gay for Teague, we're in the same boat, still missing a third guy.

I'm assuming they would be able to pick up some more offensive punch at SG/SF to make it work while Teague nearly makes up for that productivity at PG. Now I think it's best to keep Gay and look for a 3 and D guy at PG and SG.

SacKingZZZ · Post #672 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:36 am

City of Trees wrote:Gay is turning 30 and his decline will begin... we have already seen Gay' s best years, no need to commit further time to him. Dueces. Besides I'm sure he wants to leave Sac anyways.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I don't see Gay having to many issues in decline because he's always been more about size and length than athletic ability. He's athletic but he's not really been off the charts for awhile now.

Kings2013 · Post #673 » by **Kings2013** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:44 am

I like the move. Chriss is a ? and all three of Papa/Skal/Bogdonovich can potentially play

RIPskaterdude · Post #674 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:10 am

How is Chriss a ? but Papa isn't?

jeffjtk1234 · Post #675 » by **jeffjtk1234** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:19 am

RIPskaterdude wrote:How is Chriss a ? but Papa isn't?

Yeah I agree with your take but they are both upside players and the Kings got Skal And other pieces for basically trading upside players.

The argument really is should Valentine or Baldwin been the pick instead not Chriss

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

RIPskaterdude · Post #676 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:22 am

I liked the trade with Phx for the extra picks, I just can't understand why we got Papa. If we get Baldwin or Valentine, the draft ends up great.

blind prophet · Post #677 » by **blind prophet** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:41 am

jeffjtk1234 wrote:
RIPskaterdude wrote:How is Chriss a ? but Papa isn't?

Yeah I agree with your take but they are both upside players and the Kings got Skal And other pieces for basically trading upside players.

The argument really is should Valentine or Baldwin been the pick instead not Chriss

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Valentine's lack of athleticism is a big risk if you ask me. They took a look at Baldwin. In my arm chair Baldwin would of been my choice but still didn't go until 17.

rpa · Post #678 » by **rpa** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:56 am

24 hours later I've come to the conclusion that I can really only rationalize the moves (well, move since that's the head scratcher):

#1: Giving themselves the ability to trade Cousins for backcourt help/pieces

I'm not sure if this makes the most sense out of the two (neither do really), but it's hard to argue against. WCS/Skal/GP seem like perfect bigs for this new, small ball area (though in different ways). WCS is your center who can run like a guard and switch off on to them; Skal is nearly as athletic but may work in the range to be a floor stretcher; and GP has the size/length/shooting to make things really interesting when a team goes small (and he seems nimble enough to not get destroyed on defense).

If you trade Cousins for Russell/Ingram then things look kind of interesting in 2017 ... Russell/Bogdan/Ingram/Skal or WCS/WCS or GP.

#2: Some combination of zig when they zag and roll with the punches

Kind of a 2 parter (and the opposite of 1). For starters, this draft had a lot of big man prospects in it. Exactly half (15) of the players drafted in the first round are listed as a PF or a C. For reference 2015 had 13, 2014 had 11 (but a number of them were SF/PF guys), and 2013 had 11. If you remove the top 7 of the draft it's even more concentrated towards bigs (ie 13 of the final 23 picks of the first round were PF/C). So when that happens you can either go with the floor or you can try to go against it and grab what's there. The Kings decided to play to the strength of the draft (bigs).

Secondly (and more importantly) maybe Vlade came to the realization that he's not going to beat these small ball teams playing small ball. If the ultimate goal is a championship and to get there you have to go through (currently and probably for the conceivable future) GSW how dumb do you have to be to believe that you can beat them at their own game? Adding big, nimble centers does a couple things for you. First, it gives you a huge advantage around the rim--both on the defensive end (where you'll have the length to disrupt shots around the rim)--and on the offensive glass at the other end. Second, if they're nimble enough you can play them without them being a complete liability if you switch on PnRs.

Again, I don't really believe either of these. At the end of the day I think Vlade sent caution to the wind and drafted whoever was still highest on their board (ie BPA) and completely disregarded position. Most people think that's the correct play, but I think it's stupid and downright incomplete. You should always go BPA ... as long as you can fit the player into your rotation. So, take the historical example: the Blazers drafting Bowie over Jordan because they already had Drexler at the 2. They should have still gone BPA here as you could have had Jordan/Drexler play the 2/3 (granted they had Kiki at the 3, but they shouldn't have shied away from Jordan because he could still conceivably play with Drexler). In the Kings' case they took BPA without the ability to fit the guys into their rotation--and that's the real issue here. The real issue wasn't that Vlade "reached" (he didn't) or that he picked a Euro (it's worked out pretty well for us before) or that he picked someone no one knew (seriously?)--it's that he picked a guy that you can't conceivably play with your best player on the floor.

Kings2013 · Post #679 » by **Kings2013** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:41 pm

RIPskaterdude wrote:How is Chriss a ? but Papa isn't?

He is too. 3 risks instead of one for me

DiamondParoxysm · Post #680 » by **DiamondParoxysm** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:35 am

I just came here to say ASSETS

FINALLY