RealGM

Draft is approaching, so let's take a look at Petrie's draft record since 05 and who we potentially missed out on and whether or not we made the best pick each year.

2008
#12 Jason Thompson

#13 Brandon Rush
#14 Anthony Randolph
#16 Marreese Speights
#17 Roy Hibbert
#18 JaVale McGee

2007
#10 Spencer Hawes

#12 Thaddeus Young
#13 Julian Wright
#14 Al Thornton
#15 Rodney Stuckey
#16 Nick Young
#23 Wilson Chandler
#24 Rudy Fernadez

2006
#19 Quincy Douby

#20 Renaldo Blakman
#21 Rajon Rondo
#22 Marcus Williams
#24 Kyle Lowry
#25 Shannon Brown
#26 Jordan Farmer
#27 Sergio Rodriguez

2005
#23 Francisco Garcia

#24 Luther Head
#26 Jason Maxiell
#27 Linas Kleiza
#30 David Lee
#37 Ronny Turiaf
#40 Monta Ellis
#49 Andray Blatche
#56 Amir Johnson

2004
#26 Kevin Martin

#27 Sasha Vujacic
#28 BENO UDRIH
#30 David Harrison
#31 Anderson Varejao

No Pick 2002 & 2003

2002
#25 Gerald Wallace

#26 Samuel Dalembert
#27 Jamaal Tinsley
#28 Tony Parker
#31 Gilbert Arenas
#38 Mehemt Okur

2000
#16 Hidayet Turkoglu

#17 Desmond Mason
#18 Quentin richardson
#19 Jamaal Magloire
#21 Morris Peterson




Looking back, how would you have drafted/who did you want drafted at the time?
Looking back, which drafts do you think Petrie completely dropped the ball on?
Looking back, how good of a drafter do you think Petrie truly is?
With that in mind, how confident are you with Petrie selecting the best players for us in this years draft, mainly #23 and #31

The only bust out of the list is Douby. I think the rest are arguably good picks.

Curious, though, Petrie has far more than 4 years worth of drafting history. Why not look as his complete body of work?

I think we were "winners" on all those drafts except the obvious 2006. I would have taken EVERY player listed after Douby.

I think this draft Petrie will take Griffin at 1, if we fall to 3 or 4, I don't think Petrie will take Jennings or Evans. I think he will trade and take a skill player. As much as I would like them, I just dont see Petrie taking those type of players. Same story at the 23, Lawson seems like a Petrie pick to me. At 31 expect a wild card.

2005: I would have taken Lee and Ellis miles ahead of Garcia. Also I would have considered the others as well.

2006: Anyone on the list ahead of douby, especially Rondo. Could you imagine rondo our pg?

2007: We made the right choice. People were complaining because Thorton, but 24 year old rookies are not for me. And Stuckey? Possibly, but I have great faith in Hawes.

2008: This wont be popular but I would take Randolph any day over thompson. More upside, more athleticism, and more pure talent. Also I would have taken Rush if it went trading for Bayless. Speights has a higher ceiling but I would take Thompson over him.

Overall the Spencer Hawes pick is the only one I agree with 100% in hindsight.

I like how you completely ignore 2004 where we drafted Martin. Seriously deNIEd, your agenda couldn't be anymore clear. This s*** gets old.

KingInExile wrote:The only bust out of the list is Douby. I think the rest are arguably good picks.

Curious, though, Petrie has far more than 4 years worth of drafting history. Why not look as his complete body of work?

I went only 4 years since it was the most recent. '04 was kinda pointless to look at cause it was the best choice w/o question. We all know that Petrie has the ability to draft/make the best moves, however lately IMO he simply hasn't been on the ball at all.

I added it up to 2000, so we have a decade or so.

Wolfay wrote:I like how you completely ignore 2004 where we drafted Martin. Seriously deNIEd, your agenda couldn't be anymore clear. This s*** gets old.

Didn't think '04 was worth talking about. It's a given that Martin was the best choice.

'04 also happens to mark the MASSIVE decline of our team, what's been the best overall move since then?

deNIEd wrote:

Wolfay wrote:I like how you completely ignore 2004 where we drafted Martin. Seriously deNIEd, your agenda couldn't be anymore clear. This s*** gets old.

Didn't think '04 was worth talking about. It's a given that Martin was the best choice.

'04 also happens to mark the MASSIVE decline of our team, what's been the best overall move since then?

You didn't think it was worth talking about because it hurt your argument (as if you had much of an argument anyway). Every move he's made has been to get us back to contention. You have to understand that it's A WORK IN PROGRESS, and you have to get worse before you get better.

You just want to bash Petrie for the sake of bashing Petrie. It's so obvious.

deNIEd wrote:

KingInExile wrote:The only bust out of the list is Douby. I think the rest are arguably good picks.

Curious, though, Petrie has far more than 4 years worth of drafting history. Why not look as his complete body of work?

I went only 4 years since it was the most recent. '04 was kinda pointless to look at cause it was the best choice w/o question. We all know that Petrie has the ability to draft/make the best moves, however lately IMO he simply hasn't been on the ball at all.

I added it up to 2000, so we have a decade or so.

That's pretty ridiculous. What are you expecting exactly? That Petrie's pick be unquestionably the best for the spot every year? I mean that's completely absurd. If you held every GM to that standard, there would just be no GMs in the league. What you want is somebody that gets a good pick most of the time, and Geoff does--I don't see how that's a debate.

Jason - Some may try to argue that Randolph should have been the pick, and there probably is an argument for that. But it's definitely close enough to where, as of right now, you can't say that that is a bad pick. Just no way at all. Randolph has shown a lot of positives but he is also out of control at times and doesn't have a position. Age and athleticism do not=potential.

Spencer - There are couple of guys that one could argue will eventually be better than Spencer--but nobody that is very clearly going to be better. Like Thad Young looks like he could be a great player, but I'd still rather have Spencer. Spencer can also be great and he's a center.

I just don't see an argument to really criticize either of these picks. Again, holding a GM to the standard of getting the player who ends up having the very best career at the spot is just so ridiculous.

Douby - Of course he is the black mark on the record. But the pick really isn't that horrible when you consider how poor the draft was. Outside of Rondo, everybody after Douby was at best a decent role player who wouldn't have had a great affect on our future. Balkman is nice, but we see his place now--he's on a contending team and is not seeing time in the playoffs. Williams was really no better than Quincy. Shannon Brown was nearly just out of the league. Those other 3 PGs aren't bad (I especially like Lowry), but they're all career backups. Again, I wouldn't mind having them, but ultimately any pick outside of Rondo here would be scrutinized.

But what we know is this--Rondo was a terrible fit for the style of player Petrie looks for. We also can infer that Rondo wouldn't have developed into nearly the player he has become had he been in a different situation (we don't know that for sure, but it's pretty strongly my belief). I couldn't imagine Petrie building a team with a PG of the future in mind who can't shoot. Now, one could legitimately argue that this was a case of Geoff sticking too close to his guns. That probably was the case. I'm just saying within the context of the situation, the pick becomes a little bit more understandable. Rondo probably wouldn't have been our PG of the future, but he could have at least been a valuable trade piece, whereas Douby clearly wasn't. That's the only real tragedy in this pick as I see it. The pick should have been Rondo, and it wasn't a mistake, but it wasn't as drastic or as clear in hindsight as it may initially seem.

Cisco - About an average pick. Not great, and not terrible. Ellis was obviously BPA in hindisight, but the only guys who I would say are clearly better than Cisco at this point are Ellis and Lee. Even Lee is kind of arguable. But the point is that the Ellis mistake was one that many teams made--largely based off of workouts (in which Ellis was injured IIRC). It's also important to note that the team was trying to win now at that point--so an older Cisco made more sense than an out-of-high-school Ellis, Blatche or Johnson.

The most important part of this though is that at #23 (especially in a draft like this--that's good but not great, really) you don't expect a star. In this area, you typically are going to get a decent role player--maybe an 8th or 9th man (of course there are exceptions). In that respect, I think Cisco could even be argued as an above average pick.


So saying that Geoff has not been "on the ball" is pretyy silly.

You can't expect the best player in every draft, and Petrie (when it comes to draft) is a risk taker, and his risks usually pay off.
I was and still furious at the Douby pick, we needed backup PG, and quick perimeter defender really bad, and Rondo was out there, but Petrie went for his pick, it's a price you pay when taking risks, it comes down to whether you prefer Rondo and the busts that were projected at the other Petrie picks, or Martin, Hedo and Peja.
It's also worth noting that Petrie (allegedly) made a promise to Gilbert Arenas in the '05 draft but broke it because Wallace fell into his lap.
I wouldn't call the Garcia pick "average", it was a good pick, Ellis had injury issues before the draft, that's why no one looked at him, and David Lee is a the same level of Garcia IMO.

The bottom line is that Petrie has a great eye for talent, he will drop the ball occasionally favouring the skilled player more than the physically gifted player, but 80% of the time it's the right call.

Yeah, Rondo is the one the jumps out. But like someone else mentioned, I think much of his development and growth is due to playing under leaders like Garnett, Pierce, and Allen. That factor is HUGE. I think Rondo is a good player, but I think it is partially due to the situation he is in, and the fact he cant shoot in the ocean right now is somewhat bothersome. If he had a decent/average jump shot, he would be virtually unstopable.

But like everyone else has said, I'm fine with all those picks cept Douby. But IMO Douby really just underperformed. I think he has talent, but just couldn't live up to it.

I think these were all good picks except for Douby. I personally love Petries draft history with us.

I, personally, have no problem with the way that Geoff drafts. Only one player drafted out of the last seven drafts that isn't AT LEAST a key role player on some team. That's damn good, IMO.

Let's just say, the problem that we find ourselves in is not the product of bad drafting. In fact, I think he has done a very good job.

We haven't been in a position to build in the draft (drafting 10 and above, or in the 20's) so what we do have is pretty good considering. Where the Kings have MESSED UP is in trades/free agency. Even if you don't like the pick (ie Randolph/Thompson) you can't make the argument now that Randolph is UNQUESTIONABLE a better pro OR that hands down he will be.

Douby is obvious, but Hawes and Stuckey is interesting, too. I don't know if drafting Stuckey would have made sense at the time, and I'm not ready to say Stuckey will have a better career than Hawes. So as far as picks go Petrie gets a B+ from me.

You can't judge Douby as a bust either because if we had not traded for BJax's expriring Douby would have been our BJax off the bench this year. You can't judge guys just from their numbers, Salmons scored 4 pts a game in 4 years in Detroit behind Allen Iverson because he was young and last on the list of scoring options. Same with Hedo and Gerald Wallace. Are they busts because they didn't get very much time or touches in Sacramento?

ICMTM wrote:We haven't been in a position to build in the draft (drafting 10 and above, or in the 20's) so what we do have is pretty good considering. Where the Kings have MESSED UP is in trades/free agency. Even if you don't like the pick (ie Randolph/Thompson) you can't make the argument now that Randolph is UNQUESTIONABLE a better pro OR that hands down he will be.

Douby is obvious, but Hawes and Stuckey is interesting, too. I don't know if drafting Stuckey would have made sense at the time, and I'm not ready to say Stuckey will have a better career than Hawes. So as far as picks go Petrie gets a B+ from me.

Stuckey is SOOO overrated.

cdt3 wrote:You can't judge Douby as a bust either because if we had not traded for BJax's expriring Douby would have been our BJax off the bench this year. You can't judge guys just from their numbers, Salmons scored 4 pts a game in 4 years in Phila behind Allen Iverson because he was young and last on the list of scoring options. Same with Hedo and Gerald Wallace. Are they busts because they didn't get very much time or touches in Sacramento?

fixed

Yeah, Stuckey is overrated by Piston fans. Well, at first I thought he had great talent and would become a really really good player in this L but he hasn't shown me anything that he can be that player. Maybe I would give him one more year with full time starter for a season.

mitchweber wrote:Cisco - About an average pick. Not great, and not terrible. Ellis was obviously BPA in hindisight, but the only guys who I would say are clearly better than Cisco at this point are Ellis and Lee. Even Lee is kind of arguable. But the point is that the Ellis mistake was one that many teams made--largely based off of workouts (in which Ellis was injured IIRC). It's also important to note that the team was trying to win now at that point--so an older Cisco made more sense than an out-of-high-school Ellis, Blatche or Johnson.

There is no question in my mind that Lee is a better player than Garcia...and I bet if you ask ANY non-Kings fan, they would 100% agree with me. How is Garcia better than/or on par with Lee?

xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:There is no question in my mind that Lee is a better player than Garcia...and I bet if you ask ANY non-Kings fan, they would 100% agree with me. How is Garcia better than/or on par with Lee?

Lee is a great rebounder, but other than that he doesn't bring anything special to the table.