Kemba's staying no matter what, right or wrong?

[Soul Rebel]

After seeing AD pivot for the opportunity to get out of a small market team and have a chance beside future HOFers, I am starting to worry a bit about Kemba.

I do think that Kemba is true about his intentions and if Kupchak can't make a big enough move to bring in some serious talent around Kemba, I would be on board a trade of Kemba. He is my favorite player in the league and the greatest Hornet we've had, but the guy is approaching 30 and this franchise has not done enough to give him the weapons he needs.

Thee worst thing Kupchak and MJ can do is not bring in a talent at the deadline and watch Walker walk for nothing. We could land a king's ransom for Kemba. I'd argue that we could land DSJ, Knox and something for Walker from the Knicks. I'd say Ingram + Kuzma from the LAL.

Kupchak was brought in for this exact reason and if he can't get this team off the Cho/Higgins train, we are well on our way to being the Sacramento Kings of the East for the foreseeable future.

[Robot Rock]

DSJ and Knox aren't a king's ransom. That's more of a pauper's ransom.

[JMAC3]

The time to trade Kemba is past, if we were going to trade him it would of been this summer or last deadline. I’m not saying the fans would riot, but it would be pretty crazy to trade him now with him being a starter in the allstar game in Charlotte.

I don’t love our young players enough to try and rebuild now anyways. We might as well make a run at it and give up good assets to try and become a dangerous 6 seed in east.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[316Hornets]

The time to trade Kemba is past, if we were going to trade him it would of been this summer or last deadline. I’m not saying the fans would riot, but it would be pretty crazy to trade him now with him being a starter in the allstar game in Charlotte.

I don’t love our young players enough to try and rebuild now anyways. We might as well make a run at it and give up good assets to try and become a dangerous 6 seed in east.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I'm thinking they may play it this way to save face as well. Our only hope is that Kemba demands a trade so the fans can understand. But, if ownership just traded him away, a lot of casual basketball fans would stop supporting the Hornets.

Really, only hope of keeping Kemba is probably swinging for the fences and bringing in a star so he doesn't have the 'I want to win' excuse.

Drummond would probably accomplish that if he is decent.

[Najee12]

Najee is correct in that these picks were panned by many of us on this board. I for one wanted alternatives in nearly every selection. They don’t always pan out either. But the point is valid; Charlotte has a dreadful record of picks since the Bobcats era. That action alone helps to account for our pathetic performance since then. Talent wins in the NBA.

The moderator seems to misunderstand the post. You can't call players such as D.J. Augustin, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Frank Kaminsky busts because they have the career arcs most scouts envisioned. The problem is Charlotte continually used top 10 picks on projected role player-types despite being an expansion/losing team to a 40-win franchise that needed (and could have drafted) potential star talent.

The scouts were right on most of Charlotte's draft picks being what they became, which is why the second-generation Charlotte has had the bad draft results. The team made bad choices that many scouts and observers questioned almost immediately. For example, why spend the No. 2 pick of the 2012 draft on a player who struggles to score and shoot (Kidd-Gilchrist) when you had the worst season in NBA history because the team couldn't score or shoot? Moreover, why spend the No. 2 pick on a player many scouts compared to Tony Allen, a role player known as a good man-to-man defender but can't shoot a lick?

Did anyone think Kidd-Gilchrist had star potential when came out of college? No. He was considered a defensive specialist with limited offensive ability, a la Allen. He was picked way too high, especially for a team with Charlotte's needs at the time.

[amcoolio]

Klay Thompson was universally panned as a Marco Bellineli type that brought shooting and nothing else

Kawhi, a Gerald Wallace lite.

Charlotte also could have drafted those two and they wouldn’t have developed like they did in GS and SA.

Alternatively, SA could have drafted Biyombo and developed him a lot better and he could have been Gobert.

The draft hindsight is a moot point.

[316Hornets]

Najee is correct in that these picks were panned by many of us on this board. I for one wanted alternatives in nearly every selection. They don’t always pan out either. But the point is valid; Charlotte has a dreadful record of picks since the Bobcats era. That action alone helps to account for our pathetic performance since then. Talent wins in the NBA.

The moderator seems to misunderstand the post. You can't call players such as D.J. Augustin, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Frank Kaminsky busts because they have the career arcs most scouts envisioned. The problem is Charlotte continually used top 10 picks on projected role player-types despite being an expansion/losing team to a 40-win franchise that needed (and could have drafted) potential star talent.

The scouts were right on most of Charlotte's draft picks being what they became, which is why the second-generation Charlotte has had the bad draft results. The team made bad choices that many scouts and observers questioned almost immediately. For example, why spend the No. 2 pick of the 2012 draft on a player who struggles to score and shoot (Kidd-Gilchrist) when you had the worst season in NBA history because the team couldn't score or shoot? Moreover, why spend the No. 2 pick on a player many scouts compared to Tony Allen, a role player known as a good man-to-man defender but can shoot a lick?

Did anyone think Kidd-Gilchrist had star potential when came out of college? No. He was considered a defensive specialist with limited offensive ability, a la Allen. He was picked way too high, especially for a team with Charlotte's needs at the time.

Spot on, MKG was a luxury pick and we were the poorest team in the league. Even now, he's a luxury to us, a declining one at that since his offense hasn't really improved much since being drafted.

[Najee12]

Klay Thompson was universally panned as a Marco Bellineli type that brought shooting and nothing else

Kawhi, a Gerald Wallace lite.

Charlotte also could have drafted those two and they wouldn’t have developed like they did in GS and SA.

Alternatively, SA could have drafted Biyombo and developed him a lot better and he could have been Gobert.

The draft hindsight is a moot point.

None of my selections were draft hindsight. Those were the selections I said I would have chosen at that time. It doesn't mean, "That player would have become what he is today," but "That is the player I liked for Charlotte at that time." Assuming you know the thoughts of people who you don't know or didn't know years ago is a fallacious argument.

Really, were you expecting Bismack Biyombo to be more than a shot-blocker with no offense (which he was projected to be)? The closest comparison to Biyombo was Serge Ibaka with no offense. Seven years, two teams and a second stint in Charlotte later, Biyombo still has no offensive game. So is it a bad organization (limited player development environment), a player with limited skills or some combination of both? With any choice, it still is a bad draft pick by Charlotte.

[amcoolio]

How as MKG a luxury pick and Kawhi a need? MKG was extremely similar to Kawhi coming out of college.

Injuries derailed MKG's career. He had a tremendous motor and had confidence. Remember when he played those first couple seasons and we were toe to toe with everyone else? Then he got injured and we cratered.

[BlackOutBuzz]

MKG hasn't panned out as hoped, but there's a lot of revisionist history in here. No one was on Davis' level, but MKG was a consensus top 5 prospect - along with Beal, Robinson, and often Drummond - at the time of the draft. The real surprises were Waiters at 4 and Ross at 8, or that Drummond slid to 9.

In hindsight we obviously should've picked a different player, but at the time he was a real blue chip prospect.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[316Hornets]

MKG had shown nothing to demonstrate that he would be a reliable offensive threat in the NBA except for his 'motor.' He hasn't developed his shot since entering the league, and the injury excuse is a tired and overused one. Kawhi, at the least, had the measurements to make him a threat from the post area while MKG relies solely on outworking the other guy. In the NBA, most everyone is in excellent shape and that motor doesn't come into play, especially since we can't even keep MKG on the floor for more than 35 minutes a game due to his limited offensive skillset.

I'm not sure what I thought at the time, so not really saying I knew that then. I wasn't following as close, but from all the scouting reports, MKG was noted to have huge question marks as a scorer. So, why would a team so devoid of talent add a defensive gem? It just delays the inevitable most nights. I have similar questions to Memphis adding Jaren Jackson Jr.. He has better measurements than MKG but not sure how well he matches up against the stars.


Just look at this scouting report and tell me if much has changed

https://www.nbadraft.net/players/michael-kidd-gilchrist


This tidbit from Beal's scouting report:

"Overall: Beal is a solid prospect with good ability on offense … His jump shot is outstanding, his ability to score off the bounce from mid-range is also great, he’s got a pretty good body for a young SG, and he’s a strong defender too … He’s not a tremendous athlete or ball-handler though, and thus struggles some as a finisher and slasher, but he does have great upside as an off-ball scorer at the SG spot … He’s a likely top 20 pick whenever he declares ..."


Just looking at the team and direction at the time, MKG was obviously a luxury when your team is devoid of talent, you don't take the guy with such a low ceiling.

[yosemiteben]

MKG had shown nothing to demonstrate that he would be a reliable offensive threat in the NBA except for his 'motor.'...Just looking at the team and direction at the time, MKG was obviously a luxury when your team is devoid of talent, you don't take the guy with such a low ceiling.

He was 19 and played a major role on a championship team.

I'm not sure what a luxury pick even is, but he was drafted basically where everyone thought he would be.

Some guy saying Beal should be a top 20 pick is completely irrelevant.

[Najee12]

MKG hasn't panned out as hoped, but there's a lot of revisionist history in here. No one was on Davis' level, but MKG was a consensus top 5 prospect - along with Beal, Robinson, and often Drummond - at the time of the draft. The real surprises were Waiters at 4 and Ross at 8, or that Drummond slid to 9.

In hindsight we obviously should've picked a different player, but at the time he was a real blue chip prospect.

Arguing whether a player was a top prospect or the best player for a team are two different things. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist was considered a top prospect in the 2012 class but he was a poor selection for a Charlotte team that needed a potential scorer and offensive player in the worst way. I believe some of you people are forgetting when Charlotte had the No. 2 pick in the 2012 draft, the then-Bobcats were coming off THE WORST SEASON IN NBA HISTORY: a 7-59 record with a team field goal percentage of .415 and scoring 87 points per game. Those are not bad numbers, but arguably the worst shooting percentage and lowest scoring average in the modern, post dead-ball era NBA.

The best player comparison to Kidd-Gilchrist is Tony Allen: a potentially top-level man-to-man defender and hustle player. The general thought was Kidd-Gilchrist's hustle and style of play would change the culture of a team that had a historically horrible season. But his offensive limitations were a major question mark then, so it made no sense for a team that couldn't score or shoot to select a player who couldn't score or shoot.

I guess people are forgetting how much of a horrible form Kidd-Gilchrist had on his jump shot and that he shot in the low 30 percent range beyond 15 feet. Even with Mark Price helping him overhaul his shot, Kidd-Gilchrist still is a poor shooter. Again, it's something scouts expected and predicted (his scouting reports even projected Kidd-Gilchrist as having limited upside). Having a small forward with limited offensive skills and no other particularly unique skills is a major liability in the NBA.

Like it or not, but you don't spend the No. 2 pick of the draft on a player with Tony Allen upside (or maybe the Atlanta Hawks-era Stacey Augmon if he developed a more rounded offensive game) -- especially if your team is one of the worst offensive teams in NBA history. Charlotte desperately needed a player who could score and knock down shots. Kidd-Gilchrist became exactly what scouts and experts predicted he would become.

[Najee12]

MKG had shown nothing to demonstrate that he would be a reliable offensive threat in the NBA except for his 'motor.' He hasn't developed his shot since entering the league, and the injury excuse is a tired and overused one. ...

Just look at this scouting report and tell me if much has changed

https://www.nbadraft.net/players/michael-kidd-gilchrist

...

Just looking at the team and direction at the time, MKG was obviously a luxury when your team is devoid of talent, you don't take the guy with such a low ceiling.

Even the scouting reports projected Michael Kidd-Gilchrist as having a low upside (to me, the best player comparison is Tony Allen, the Atlanta-era Stacey Augmon if Kidd-Gilchrist became more rounded offensively). Picking Kidd-Gilchrist was just way too high for a player with his limitations, particularly for a team that was as historically bad as Charlotte. Coupled with Charlotte spending a top 10 pick on Bismack Biyombo the previous year, you're talking about two recent lottery picks who are offensively challenged on a team that could not score or shoot.

As for people crying revisionist history on Bradley Beal, even in 2012 people such as Stephen A. Smith said Charlotte should have drafted Beal with the No. 2 pick (Skip Bayless said Charlotte should take Kidd-Gilchrist):

Watch on YouTube

[Bassman]

Agree Najee, there is no defending picking hyphen with the #2 pick. I wanted Beal, but Drummond was also a great option given our needs and his potential.

[SWedd523]

Agree Najee, there is no defending picking hyphen with the #2 pick. I wanted Beal, but Drummond was also a great option given our needs and his potential.

I remember that pre-draft war room meeting where Higgins (I think) said we couldn't draft Drummond because we already had one project big (Bismack) on the roster

[Liver_Pooty]

MKG was suppose to be a mix of Wallace and Iguodala. After his first SL game where he looked absolutely amazing people were throwing Pippen comps out there. Things just haven't progressed as they should have

[yosemiteben]

I have to chuckle at the suggestion that there was a specific type of player we needed in 2012. I still don't know what we mean by luxury pick, but this roster was a dumpster fire in 2012 and there was no reason to not draft any player that year due to fit.

[Hornet Mania]

MKG was suppose to be a mix of Wallace and Iguodala. After his first SL game where he looked absolutely amazing people were throwing Pippen comps out there. Things just haven't progressed as they should have

Yep, and the youngest player in the draft to boot.

We were definitely shooting for potential on that pick, and hoping some of the winning mentality he had helped create at Kentucky (Google 'the breakfast club' he founded that year with his teammates) would rub off on the worst team of all time.

I had prospects ranked Drummond, Beal, then MKG. I considered Drummond and MKG as the swing-for-the-fences choices while Beal seemed like more a sure thing but with a lower ceiling.

[Najee12]

MKG was suppose to be a mix of Wallace and Iguodala. After his first SL game where he looked absolutely amazing people were throwing Pippen comps out there. Things just haven't progressed as they should have

Michael Kidd-Gilchrist has nothing in common with Andre Iguodala or Gerald Wallace.

Both Iguodala and Wallace are/were more explosive players than Kidd-Gilchrist. Iguodala has the versatility to play both guard positions and small forward because of his ball-handling skills. Kidd-Gilchrist does not have that kind of versatility.

Wallace bulked up and made himself a more fundamentally sound player who was a combination forward who played inside and outside. Kidd-Gilchrist is lanky, a la Tony Allen and Stacey Augmon.

Iguodala was an 18-20 points-per-game scorer during his Philadelphia days. Wallace was worth 16-19 points per game in his Charlotte days. Kidd-Gilchrist never showed any inclination he was capable of being an offensive player. His horrible shot mechanics precluded him from developing any range. He couldn't (and still can't) create his own shot in the half court. Even to this day, Kidd-Gilchrist depends on hustle, running the court and crashing the offensive boards to score.

The Scottie Pippen comparison is just idiotic. Pippen was a small forward with guard skills, particularly with ball-handling and passing. Where is Kidd-Gilchrist remotely comparable in those categories? Pippen could manufacture offense and could score in the halfcourt (streaky shooter, great off-the-glass jumper). Surely you're not suggesting you saw perennial all-NBA potential in Kidd-Gilchrist, a la Pippen.

Kidd-Gilchrist became what many scouts expected -- a Tony Allen-type player, except he's like a lesser version of Allen. His most quantifiable skill was man-to-man defense with his hustle being a strong intangible. Some of you people are acting like Kidd-Gilchrist was hindered or was projected to be a top-level player. He became what many people expected.