Time Machine Draft

[City of Trees]

But like I said, what is questionable and more important, is why a GM chooses player X when he was an inch away from drafting player Y. What last minute thoughts changed the decision.

Team need
Potential
Trade value
Player strengths/ weakness

Take your pick.. Different reasons every pick.

[PetrieUnderstudy]

Wow! Some of you are completely misinterpreting my post. I am not bashing Petrie. Look at my name. Overall he's done a decent job and drafting isn't an exact science. I just thought it would be interesting with the draft approaching to bring this up. Maybe we can find a gem at #35 or maybe we'll finally be active on draft day by making a trade(s) and move up or buy a pick.

[City of Trees]

Wow! Some of you are completely misinterpreting my post. I am not bashing Petrie. Look at my name. Overall he's done a decent job and drafting isn't an exact science. I just thought it would be interesting with the draft approaching to bring this up. Maybe we can find a gem at #35 or maybe we'll finally be active on draft day by making a trade(s) and move up or buy a pick.

My intention was not to bash your post. If you took it that way I apologize. However i strongly agree that when picking at #35 it will be a roll of the dice (Whiteside). An incomplete player who we hope can develop. A GM can search for certain traits in personality, work ethic, intelligence, ect.. What ever player we take at #35 will be a project. All you can do is put that player in the best learning situation possible and hope he starts to grow as a player.

[Nicky Nix Nook]

What could've been:

Rajon Rondo/Goran Dragic
Tyreke Evans/Marcus Thornton
Landry Fields/Bill Walker
David Lee/Serge Ibaka/Taj Gibson
Marc Gasol/DeMarcus Cousins

We praise Petrie and In Petrie We Trust but is this really that successful a draft history?

You are looking at this all wrong.

Take Tyreke / Cousins out of that line up and you can say "what could have been" for almost every team in the league. This is pointless.

Exactly. It's the butterfly effect.

[PetrieUnderstudy]

Wow! Some of you are completely misinterpreting my post. I am not bashing Petrie. Look at my name. Overall he's done a decent job and drafting isn't an exact science. I just thought it would be interesting with the draft approaching to bring this up. Maybe we can find a gem at #35 or maybe we'll finally be active on draft day by making a trade(s) and move up or buy a pick.

My intention was not to bash your post. If you took it that way I apologize. However i strongly agree that when picking at #35 it will be a roll of the dice (Whiteside). An incomplete player who we hope can develop. A GM can search for certain traits in personality, work ethic, intelligence, ect.. What ever player we take at #35 will be a project. All you can do is put that player in the best learning situation possible and hope he starts to grow as a player.

I don't completely agree with this. There are guys that can come in and contribute immediately at #35. We are in a situation where we've been "rebuilding" for years. We need to start winning. I don't want projects, I want guys that can help us win now in some sort of role.

Landry Fields was drafted #39 last year. I'm not saying its easy to find "that guy" but it does seem that the Spurs have been successful in finding some later pick gems.

List of some nice 2nd round picks: #43 Trevor Ariza, #55 Luis Scola, #31 Carl Landry, #48 Marc Gasol, #38 Mehmet Okur, #40 Monta Ellis, #47 Mo Williams, #31 Gilbert Arenas, #43 Michael Redd, #34 Carlos Boozer, #47 Paul Milsap, #32 Rashard Lewis, #43 Stephen Jackson, #57 Manu Ginobili, #37 Nick Van Exel, #53 Anthony Mason, #46 Jeff Hornacek, #36 Clifford Robinson.

We don't know how Hassan Whiteside will develop but our best 2nd round picks in the Sacramento era are 1998 Jerome James (lol not really just killed us for 1 series), 1997 Anthony Johnson (had a nice career), 1995 Tyus Edney (contributed some), 1994 Michael Smith & Lawrence Funderburke, 1991 Randy Brown, 1990 Bimbo Coles, 1988 Vinny Del Negro. None more than role players at best.

I started thinking about our lack of luck if you want to call it that and how it has followed us throughout the years. Or is it that bad franchises make bad decisions? Maybe a downtown arena will change our "luck" no longer playing on Indian burial grounds in Natomas.

Whatever the case, make it happen Petrie! I like all the rest of us want to start winning!

[City of Trees]

it does seem that the Spurs have been successful in finding some later pick gems.

Thats because they rolled the dice on a player who doesnt own a pair of knee ligaments. There was no denying his talent. (Blair)

List of some nice 2nd round picks: #43 Trevor Ariza, #55 Luis Scola, #31 Carl Landry, #48 Marc Gasol, #38 Mehmet Okur, #40 Monta Ellis, #47 Mo Williams, #31 Gilbert Arenas, #43 Michael Redd, #34 Carlos Boozer, #47 Paul Milsap, #32 Rashard Lewis, #43 Stephen Jackson, #57 Manu Ginobili, #37 Nick Van Exel, #53 Anthony Mason, #46 Jeff Hornacek, #36 Clifford Robinson.

Look at those picks you pointed out. Now examine what # those picks went. Now look at the Kings draft history.

What you should have realized is on your list, of those players only THREE of them were taken before #50.

What you should have also found in researching the Kings draft history, is that since 2001, the Kings have only picked five times in the 2nd round BEFORE #50. ( #33 Whiteside 10', #38 Brockman 09', #42-43 Singletary/ Ewing Jr. 08', #49 Ricky Minard 04')

The odds are against us in the past 10 years with the ratio of diamonds in the rough/ picks before #50. We will strike gold eventually. But these things run their course. There is no bad 2nd round pick. Only good 2nd round picks.

If you want to identify a specific reason as to why the Kings aren't striking gold in the 2nd round I would point to the lack of picks before #50.

* did not count J. Pendergraph 09' as that pick was traded. GP did not make that selection

[dozencousins]

Wow! Some of you are completely misinterpreting my post. I am not bashing Petrie. Look at my name. Overall he's done a decent job and drafting isn't an exact science. I just thought it would be interesting with the draft approaching to bring this up. Maybe we can find a gem at #35 or maybe we'll finally be active on draft day by making a trade(s) and move up or buy a pick.

My intention was not to bash your post. If you took it that way I apologize. However i strongly agree that when picking at #35 it will be a roll of the dice (Whiteside). An incomplete player who we hope can develop. A GM can search for certain traits in personality, work ethic, intelligence, ect.. What ever player we take at #35 will be a project. All you can do is put that player in the best learning situation possible and hope he starts to grow as a player.

I don't completely agree with this. There are guys that can come in and contribute immediately at #35. We are in a situation where we've been "rebuilding" for years. We need to start winning. I don't want projects, I want guys that can help us win now in some sort of role.

Landry Fields was drafted #39 last year. I'm not saying its easy to find "that guy" but it does seem that the Spurs have been successful in finding some later pick gems.

List of some nice 2nd round picks: #43 Trevor Ariza, #55 Luis Scola, #31 Carl Landry, #48 Marc Gasol, #38 Mehmet Okur, #40 Monta Ellis, #47 Mo Williams, #31 Gilbert Arenas, #43 Michael Redd, #34 Carlos Boozer, #47 Paul Milsap, #32 Rashard Lewis, #43 Stephen Jackson, #57 Manu Ginobili, #37 Nick Van Exel, #53 Anthony Mason, #46 Jeff Hornacek, #36 Clifford Robinson.

We don't know how Hassan Whiteside will develop but our best 2nd round picks in the Sacramento era are 1998 Jerome James (lol not really just killed us for 1 series), 1997 Anthony Johnson (had a nice career), 1995 Tyus Edney (contributed some), 1994 Michael Smith & Lawrence Funderburke, 1991 Randy Brown, 1990 Bimbo Coles, 1988 Vinny Del Negro. None more than role players at best.

I started thinking about our lack of luck if you want to call it that and how it has followed us throughout the years. Or is it that bad franchises make bad decisions? Maybe a downtown arena will change our "luck" no longer playing on Indian burial grounds in Natomas.

Whatever the case, make it happen Petrie! I like all the rest of us want to start winning!

No Offense : But for every 1 player that has had even so much as minumal success in the NBA I can name you 10 that have ammounted to nothing . The draft is a crap shoot for both the 1st & 2nd rounds more so the 2nd . The 1st round now a days there is usually at least 1 or 2 sure things & some that look great also but most of even the 1st round is drafted more on potential than anything . Usually at least half of the 1st round alone is not NBA ready to be a solid contributer to their team .
Again your dwelling on Petrie's success in the draft & to be perfectly clear considering the spots he has had to draft in he has had great success with the picks he has made via the draft .

[5th pick sucks]

With the draft coming up I wanted to see how successful Petrie's really been. Going back to 2005 when CWeb was traded and we should've started rebuilding, here's who we drafted and who we should have drafted.

2005 #25 Francisco Garcia vs #30 David Lee
2006 #19 Quincy Douby vs #21 Rajon Rondo
2007 #10 Spencer Hawes vs #48 Marc Gasol
2008 #12 Jason Thompson vs #24 Serge Ibaka
2008 #42 Sean Singletary vs #45 Goran Dragic
2008 #43 Patrick Ewing Jr vs #47 Bill Walker
2009 #4 Tyreke Evans (best pick)
2009 #23 Omri Casspi vs #26 Taj Gibson
2009 #31 Jeff Pendergraph (was traded for #38 Jon Brockman) vs #43 Marcus Thornton
2010 #5 DeMarcus Cousins (best pick)
2010 #33 Hassan Whiteside vs #39 Landry Fields

That's 11 draft picks and Petrie has drafted best player twice.

What could've been:

Rajon Rondo/Goran Dragic
Tyreke Evans/Marcus Thornton
Landry Fields/Bill Walker
David Lee/Serge Ibaka/Taj Gibson
Marc Gasol/DeMarcus Cousins

We praise Petrie and In Petrie We Trust but is this really that successful a draft history?

This is pretty stupid and pointless.... First of all when we drafted Hawes he was the only sure thing besides Chandler? I think.... No one knew Gasol was gunna be what he was today.. Thought to be a role player at best.. Well prooved us wrong.. Douby destroyed shooting drills (broke every shooting record the Kings had in his workout), and was also a top scorer in college. So of course you don't pass that up... (Win some lose some) Goran Dragic is definatly a pretty decent PG but didn't he play for a small team? For 2009 we had a few pf's what we needed was a SF so we drafted one ehh? 2010 we badly needed center depth so we got that.... Besides Whiteside has more potential if it means anything... Sure it's something I wish we could have but that would also creat chemistry issues etc. With Cousins on the bench and Gibson, Ibalka not getting enough minutes

[5th pick sucks]

Oh, btw I didn't mean to sound like a jerk if I do...

[PetrieUnderstudy]

It's all good my fellow Kings fans. Again, I'm not bashing Petrie's picks. This thread was just saying what if and to spark up some conversation. We're kind of in a dead time until guys start coming in for work outs, then the draft and free agency. This offseason is critical that things work out. Having the most capspace, the arena thing, the possibility of the team still relocating. I just really hope we address our needs, battle for .500 with the national media saying watch out for these young up and coming Kings. Keep the Here We's momentum going and excitement for this team.

[pillwenney]

One doesn't judge a pick by whether or not better players were taken later, but by, I think, where the player would be picked if there was a re-draft. Going by this, Petrie's record still isn't perfect, but it is very good.

There are some clear things, I think, that led Petrie to his picks like Hawes, Thompson, etc.

Brooks was never seen as a lottery talent. IIRC, we tried to get a later pick to get him, but that didn't happen. But we also knew Brad was getting old, and we needed a new young center. Spencer didn't, in my mind, turn out to have the necessary work ethic to maximize his potential.

Ibaka wasn't going to come into the league for another year. That looks really bad for a #12 pick. Also, I don't remember any reports that we liked him, but I guess I'll take your word for that.

The other thing is that if you're going to look at a GM's draft record, you shouldn't include picks that were traded immediately after.

[deNIEd]

One doesn't judge a pick by whether or not better players were taken later, but by, I think, where the player would be picked if there was a re-draft. Going by this, Petrie's record still isn't perfect, but it is very good.

There are some clear things, I think, that led Petrie to his picks like Hawes, Thompson, etc.

Brooks was never seen as a lottery talent. IIRC, we tried to get a later pick to get him, but that didn't happen. But we also knew Brad was getting old, and we needed a new young center. Spencer didn't, in my mind, turn out to have the necessary work ethic to maximize his potential.

Ibaka wasn't going to come into the league for another year. That looks really bad for a #12 pick. Also, I don't remember any reports that we liked him, but I guess I'll take your word for that.

The other thing is that if you're going to look at a GM's draft record, you shouldn't include picks that were traded immediately after.

I'm perfectly happy with Petrie's drafting decisions. Even though I'm being critical (probably the most critical here), I still think he is a solid drafter and drafting is probably his best ability as a GM.

However, I feel Petrie still needs to be accountable for his drafting actions and all of his actions as our general manager. The organization and fans shouldn't blindly accept everything he does, and when he makes a mistake, we have to acknowledge it. Does acknowledging his mistakes mean we fire him and get a new GM? Absolutely not. But he shouldn't be viewed as a complete Saint and the perfect GM, he isn't.

But, the one aspect of Petrie's drafting record I would like to see, is him being more aggressive in the process, instead of being so passive.