Malik Monk

[DrCoach]

He has Sixers written all over him.....

The Kings could be interested in a combo/shooting guard that can get hot. I mean, why not trying something different for a change?

Kings have to hit on their picks or they are done

[shawn_hemp]

He has Sixers written all over him.....

The Kings could be interested in a combo/shooting guard that can get hot. I mean, why not trying something different for a change?

The Kings already have Buddy Hield, Malachi Richardson, Bogdan Bogdanović & Ben McLemore. Why would the Kings draft Monk?

Yeah I can't tell if that was sarcasm or not. Going back to Tyreke, the Kings have drafted so many SGs and none of them have been the players they were hoping for.

And the one guard they actually hit on (Isaiah Thomas), they didn't keep.

They should probably take either Tatum, Josh Jackson, or Johnathan Isaac

Whoever falls to them

Then again, Ty Lawson probably won't be back so a PG wouldn't be the worst spot to go

They have the luxury (if you want to look at it like that) of needing a lot of things so they really can just take whoever they feel is the best player.

But I would hope they don't think Monk would fill a pressing need for them

I'm tired of the Kings making bad decisions, it's not even funny anymore and I just feel bad for the fan base. I always liked Tyreke Evans too and I often wondered how his career would have been different if he went to a different team

[The-Power]

He has Sixers written all over him.....

The Kings could be interested in a combo/shooting guard that can get hot. I mean, why not trying something different for a change?

The Kings already have Buddy Hield, Malachi Richardson, Bogdan Bogdanović & Ben McLemore. Why would the Kings draft Monk?

They won't. At least I hope for you guys as you deserve better.

[916fan]

The Kings could be interested in a combo/shooting guard that can get hot. I mean, why not trying something different for a change?

The Kings already have Buddy Hield, Malachi Richardson, Bogdan Bogdanović & Ben McLemore. Why would the Kings draft Monk?

Yeah I can't tell if that was sarcasm or not. Going back to Tyreke, the Kings have drafted so many SGs and none of them have been the players they were hoping for.

And the one guard they actually hit on (Isaiah Thomas), they didn't keep.

They should probably take either Tatum, Josh Jackson, or Johnathan Isaac

Whoever falls to them

Then again, Ty Lawson probably won't be back so a PG wouldn't be the worst spot to go

They have the luxury (if you want to look at it like that) of needing a lot of things so they really can just take whoever they feel is the best player.

But I would hope they don't think Monk would fill a pressing need for them

I'm tired of the Kings making bad decisions, it's not even funny anymore and I just feel bad for the fan base. I always liked Tyreke Evans too and I often wondered how his career would have been different if he went to a different team

While I agree that drafting another SG with a team full of SGs would be dumb, I wouldn't oppose drafting Monk. We desperately need a franchise player, and if they think Monk can be that player, then we have to draft him.

At SG next year, we'll have Hield(23/24yearsold), Richardson(21/22yearsold), Temple (31 yearsold), and maybe Bogdanovic(25 yearsold). So in reality, that's not a lot of youth. Richardson is the only real young player, Hield is at the age of early prime, and Bogdanovic is in prime age. Monk would only be 19 yearsold at the start of next season.
Don't forget, Monk could also develop as a PG down the road. I think he has more PG skills and instincts than Jamaal Murray did.

I question the hell out of Vlade's draft evaluation. However, bright spots of Richardson and Skal do give me the slightest hope of competency.

The Kings will hopefully have 2 top 10 picks. If one of those guys were Monk, I'd be fine with it. However, I think the other pick would need to be a PG, unless the Kings feel like Monk can become a future franchise PG. When you're a team like the Kings and don't have a franchise player, BPA will be in major consideration.

[jonjames]

Clearly the kings have a logjam at 2guard..monk is a talented player but his talent would waste away on the bench and really hurt his development as player. I believe kings are set with hield as their sg of the future. They have more pressing needs at pg and sf. Fultz would have been perfect for this franchise as hes possibly the most impact ready pg right away but alas hell be gone way before they pick. Their best option is to go for either Josh Jackson Johnathan issac and package a deal of say Tyreke evans afflalo richardson collison for someone like eric bledsoe

[Klomp]

I don't think this guy gets talked about enough. I had to go all the way back to Page 7 of the forum just to find this thread. Almost made him the subject of a post in the Sleepers thread because of it. Three months since the last post in a thread for a likely Top 10 prospect, come on guys.....

I see a lot of Murray comps being made in the last two pages, but I think his athleticism makes that comparison a bad one. I see a lot of Zach LaVine in this kid's game. A lot of the same strengths and weaknesses. And I think he's being similarly undervalued leading up to the draft, despite Monk having more college production.

[Bum Adebayo]

Except Lavine is more than two inches taller and has a much better wingspan than Monk, Lavine has good size for the 2 spot, Monk is clearly undersized for the 2 spot.

[Ettorefm]

I think he has more PG skills and instincts than Jamaal Murray did.

I completely disagree. For starters, Jamal Murray dribbles the ball with his head up, something I can't say of Monk

[CptCrunch]

I think he has more PG skills and instincts than Jamaal Murray did.

I completely disagree. For starters, Jamal Murray dribbles the ball with his head up, something I can't say of Monk

Murray had poor PG skills. Monk has no PG skills. If he had PG skills, he would be a scoring PG and a top 3 pick guaranteed.

Monk is horrendous as a prospect. 6th man ceiling.

[Ettorefm]

I think he has more PG skills and instincts than Jamaal Murray did.

I completely disagree. For starters, Jamal Murray dribbles the ball with his head up, something I can't say of Monk

Murray had poor PG skills. Monk has no PG skills. If he had PG skills, he would be a scoring PG and a top 3 pick guaranteed.

Monk is horrendous as a prospect. 6th man ceiling.

Agreed.

Also, to those who disagree...what do 6'3 SG with no playmaking skills, no vision and amazing shooting and self creating ability end up being?

Which players fill the description above? How many of them are starters?

Yeah. Thought so. That's my point.

[dukes_wild]

I think he has more PG skills and instincts than Jamaal Murray did.

I completely disagree. For starters, Jamal Murray dribbles the ball with his head up, something I can't say of Monk

Murray had poor PG skills. Monk has no PG skills. If he had PG skills, he would be a scoring PG and a top 3 pick guaranteed.

Monk is horrendous as a prospect. 6th man ceiling.

Let's relax here, Monk is nowhere near "Horrendous as a prospect"

59% TS with a 28% usage rate as an 18 year old freshman is impressive, and in an NBA game where there's more space and pace, he in theory fits better in the NBA than he does at the College level

Monk has a lot of flaws, but what he's elite at is putting the ball in the basket in a variety of ways, 3pt shooting being his specialty, which is becoming more and more coveted in the NBA. He isn't just a catch and shoot guy either, he can shoot 3s off the dribble and will put a lot of pressure on opposing defenses when he has the ball in his hands

I don't think he's great, and you very well could be right that his ceiling is a 6th man, but he's a very special talent offensively who's still only 19 and because of that he's a high end prospect

[Duke4life831]

I think he has more PG skills and instincts than Jamaal Murray did.

I completely disagree. For starters, Jamal Murray dribbles the ball with his head up, something I can't say of Monk

Murray had poor PG skills. Monk has no PG skills. If he had PG skills, he would be a scoring PG and a top 3 pick guaranteed.

Monk is horrendous as a prospect. 6th man ceiling.

Yup. This time last year many people were saying Murray had PG skills because he played some PG in international play. But once he got into college he didnt really show any and in the NBA its clear as day he has 0 PG skills. Monk has never showed any PG skills and in college never showed them, so to say he has more PG skills than Murray doesnt make sense because at least Murray played some PG once in his life while Monk never had. And if anyone is banking on Monk playing PG in the NBA, youre going to be highly disappointed.

[Duke4life831]

I don't think this guy gets talked about enough. I had to go all the way back to Page 7 of the forum just to find this thread. Almost made him the subject of a post in the Sleepers thread because of it. Three months since the last post in a thread for a likely Top 10 prospect, come on guys.....

I see a lot of Murray comps being made in the last two pages, but I think his athleticism makes that comparison a bad one. I see a lot of Zach LaVine in this kid's game. A lot of the same strengths and weaknesses. And I think he's being similarly undervalued leading up to the draft, despite Monk having more college production.

I dont think many people are talking about him because I think many people realized the type of prospect he is by the time the season ended. Hes not this super great shooter like many people thought at the start of the year, hes a very hot or cold type shooter (like JR Smith) but not a consistent one, hes not a playmaker at all, his handles are very basic and is pretty much only a straight line driver and probably wont be able to create much for himself in the half court. And hes a 6'3 SG with a tiny wingspan that is a terrible defender.

I think most people see this and think, doesnt sound like a starter because of all his flaws, but definitely sounds like a super 6th man possibility like another Crawford, Lou Williams type of player. A super 6th man that can come off the bench and if his shot isnt falling, he doesnt get much minutes because he doesnt bring anything else and can shoot you out of a game, or if his shot is falling he may put up a quick 25+ points.

[Klomp]

I dont think many people are talking about him because I think many people realized the type of prospect he is by the time the season ended. Hes not this super great shooter like many people thought at the start of the year, hes a very hot or cold type shooter (like JR Smith) but not a consistent one, hes not a playmaker at all, his handles are very basic and is pretty much only a straight line driver and probably wont be able to create much for himself in the half court. And hes a 6'3 SG with a tiny wingspan that is a terrible defender.

How does he differ from Eric Gordon, for example?

[CptCrunch]

I dont think many people are talking about him because I think many people realized the type of prospect he is by the time the season ended. Hes not this super great shooter like many people thought at the start of the year, hes a very hot or cold type shooter (like JR Smith) but not a consistent one, hes not a playmaker at all, his handles are very basic and is pretty much only a straight line driver and probably wont be able to create much for himself in the half court. And hes a 6'3 SG with a tiny wingspan that is a terrible defender.

How does he differ from Eric Gordon, for example?

Looks like back then people still believed in the mid-range shot: http://www.nbadraft.net/players/eric-gordon

People has always dinged Gordon for being a bit small for SG (he is a lot longer than Monk though). Gordon never became more than a third best player on a contender kind of player. When Gordon was younger, he was a better slasher until he lost that part of the game due to knee injuries. Gordon has now been relegated to a 6th man kind of role.

The fact is that in today's NBA, if you are a 2-guard and can't play defense or can't run the offense, you are going to be the 6th man off the bench. Look at this 6th man list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Sixth_Man_of_the_Year_Award

Aside from Harden (Sacrificing minutes for Durant/Brodie), Gino (Spurs special situation) and Odom (unique player), the recent winners are all undersized one-dimensional scoring guards.

[Duke4life831]

I dont think many people are talking about him because I think many people realized the type of prospect he is by the time the season ended. Hes not this super great shooter like many people thought at the start of the year, hes a very hot or cold type shooter (like JR Smith) but not a consistent one, hes not a playmaker at all, his handles are very basic and is pretty much only a straight line driver and probably wont be able to create much for himself in the half court. And hes a 6'3 SG with a tiny wingspan that is a terrible defender.

How does he differ from Eric Gordon, for example?

Eric Gordon was a far superior slasher in college. Gordon got to the FT line almost 9 times a game in his freshman year (8.7) compared to Monk's 4.7. Gordon was much more crafty at getting to the rim than Monk, he was great at shifting speeds and overall was just very crafty. Gordon pre injury in the NBA was still the same. 70% of his shots were 2pt shots, had a high FTR for a 2 guard (high .300s to .400) and finished very well at the rim.

I dont think Monk has the same kind of ability to attack the rim as Gordon did coming out of college. Only 20% of Monk's shots came at the rim this past year and again got to the line at about half the rate as Gordon did as a freshman (.652 vs .323). I dont think Monk is going to be a dangerous slasher in the half court in the NBA because his lack of handles.

[Klomp]

I guess my biggest thing is we're judging Monk ONLY on what we saw at Kentucky. Which is fine, but we've seen multiple times over that Kentucky players often show a more versatile game once they get to the NBA (most notably Karl-Anthony Towns and Devin Booker).

Like Monk, Booker was seen as a shooter and that's it. Not a good finisher, not a good ballhandler, not a good defender. Sixth man was probably his upside too, right?

[Duke4life831]

I guess my biggest thing is we're judging Monk ONLY on what we saw at Kentucky. Which is fine, but we've seen multiple times over that Kentucky players often show a more versatile game once they get to the NBA (most notably Karl-Anthony Towns and Devin Booker).

Like Monk, Booker was seen as a shooter and that's it. Not a good finisher, not a good ballhandler, not a good defender. Sixth man was probably his upside too, right?

Im not judging Monk on only last year though. Ive been watching Monk for about 2-3 years. I was actually really high on Booker because of his size and shooting form. I thought Booker was an elite shooter and was 6'6. Booker is still a pretty flawed prospect himself, hes one of the worst defensive players getting 30+ minutes and ya he doesnt really bring much either than scoring.

The big issue with Monk is he has a really bad combination of lack of size and lack of handles. Hes going to be a massive liability defensively and I have a very hard time seeing him being able to create great shots for himself consistently in the half court.

[Klomp]

As for Monk's wingspan which has been brought up multiple times, Kentucky listed it at 6-3.5" when strangely it hadn't been below 6-6 since summer 2013.

And I'm guessing some will say Kentucky is less likely to be inaccurate than these other camps. Back to Booker, his wingspan miraculously grew two inches (while he himself shrunk an inch) between the time Kentucky measured him and the NBA Draft Combine. Before the combine, everyone thought he was 6-5.25" with a terrible 6-6.25" wingspan when in fact he was 6-4.5" with a 6-8.25" wingspan. Sure that's not elite, but it's not terrible either.

So it wouldn't surprise me to see Monk's listed measurement of 6-2.5" with a 6-3.5" wingspan is inaccurate, despite seeing it everywhere.

[EvanZ]

As for Monk's wingspan which has been brought up multiple times, Kentucky listed it at 6-3.5" when strangely it hadn't been below 6-6 since summer 2013.

And I'm guessing some will say Kentucky is less likely to be inaccurate than these other camps. Back to Booker, his wingspan miraculously grew two inches (while he himself shrunk an inch) between the time Kentucky measured him and the NBA Draft Combine. Before the combine, everyone thought he was 6-5.25" with a terrible 6-6.25" wingspan when in fact he was 6-4.5" with a 6-8.25" wingspan. Sure that's not elite, but it's not terrible either.

So it wouldn't surprise me to see Monk's listed measurement of 6-2.5" with a 6-3.5" wingspan is inaccurate, despite seeing it everywhere.

Monk's 6'3" wingspan measurement was clearly an error. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, period. Kentucky is *more* inaccurate not less. They measured Fox at 6'4.5" wingspan, which was 2" less than the 6'6.5" he measured at the Combine (which was similar to every other measurement he had). So even in the same year they had a player who we know they under-reported his wingspan.