Chad Ford's Mock 2.0

by Exhibit G on May 27, 2008 1:38 PM PDT Comment 28 comments

(From the FanPosts. DX has Russell Westbrook at #12. -- TZ)

Chad Ford's second mock draft is up. He has the Kings taking Darrell Arthur, and says that he'd be the pick as long as Augustin and Westbrook aren't there. The crazy thing to me is that he still has Kevin Love on the board, going to the Warriors at 14. Am I alone on this, or is it crazy to assume the Kings would pass on Love?

As a side note, the guy the Kings would've taken last year had he stayed in the draft, Hibbert, is being projected as staying on the board until the Jazz at 23.

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don’t disagree with this. I know the Kings currently lack any kind of athleticisim, and I know taking the slow white guy seemed the Petrie preordained Lions Wide Reciever move as early as this fall. But I’m not sure what they’d gain in athleticism by not taking Love would adequately equate to what they’d lose by going with an Arthur or Speights. Particularly when Petrie values so many of the skills Love does have.

I soured on Love after the Douglas-Roberts dunk in the Final Four. Felt it exposed him as an NBA prospect. Still do feel that way a little, but given how many bigs in this draft are haunted by concerns about pro game adjustment and lack of motivation I’m not sure, with his tangible NBA ready skill-set and devotion to the game (if not his conditioning…), that Love isn’t the best pick (presupposing, as Ford does here, that Westbrook, Augustin, Jordan are all already gone by now.)

by rbiegler on May 27, 2008 4:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Even more

CDR might even be a better pick than either Love or Arthur. He’ll never get picked in the lottery but it just goes to show you how much of a crapshoot this whole process can be.

On a side note how can Lopez drop from #3 all the way to #8 or #9? Does Chad know something we don’t know?

by Mityt on May 27, 2008 4:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I’d said something like this once previously, so apologies for repeating myself, but I think that between there being so many one and done’s and so many lottery teams with specific needs there is a tremendous amount of volatility in this year’s draft class. Most current drafts have us taking Westbrook, but Ford has him out at eight. In that sense it should be, even with Sacto picking at 12, a pretty exciting evening.

by rbiegler on May 27, 2008 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if

Love is still on the board at 12 you HAVE to take him.

by kingsTV on May 27, 2008 5:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

by smgmatt on May 27, 2008 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This a crapshoot

This mock draft is a crapshoot really. It’s way too early to say anything definitive. Orlando and the pre-draft have yet to come. We’ll see what happens.

BOOK IT!

by kingme18 on May 27, 2008 6:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My Spidey Sense

tells me that Beasley, Rose, B.Lopez, Mayo, Bayless, Gordon, Gallinari, Love and Randolph will be the first nine guys gone in the draft, though perhaps not in that exact order. That will leave Jordan, Arthur, Westbrook and Augustin, with two of those guys probably going 10 and 11. We will have our choice of the remaining two, among others.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on May 27, 2008 7:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

To trade the pick or not to trade

If Augustin, Westbrook, Jordan, or Randolph are off the board by the time our pick rolls around, I say we should trade off our pick to the Bulls for Hinrich or Noah (depending on if the Bulls pick either Rose or Beasley)

by CloudyEyes on May 27, 2008 9:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Need to match $

Noah will make $2.3M next season, while Hinrich’s on the books for $10M.

That’s the difference between Douby & the #12 (or just the player drafted at #12 after the draft) for Noah versus Miller and the #12 for Hinrich.

Many here will say that between the two they’d rather have Noah, and yet Hinrich would probably cost more (value) to obtain. His contract goes two years beyond GP’s 2010 Magical Mystery FA Tour, and would also cost the team a shot at resigning Beno. That means that you could have Beno, Miller, & the player chosen 12th in the 2008 NBA Draft . . . or Kirk Hinrich.

With the contract he has, and the possibility of resigning Beno for HALF of that . . . they’d need to take back Kenny Thomas for me to be interested in sending anything else of value if I was GP (essentially Beno – lost to FA, K9, & #12 and I’d think about it . . . remove the #12 pick and I’d say yes before they finished their sentence, contract length be damned – K9’s gone!).

I’m also not sold on Hinrich being a franchise PG either, so maybe it’s just me (well, me and the Chicago Bulls brain trust if they draft Rose).

by smgmatt on May 27, 2008 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dig

Westbrook and Joe Alexander, because with a team that’s this mediocre I think you need to roll the dice on upside and potential. The light is just going on for these two kids, and they are seriously gifted athletes. Speights is also somewhat interesting.

However, if we’re still talking about trading the pick to move up or get a starter like Joakim Noah, then I’d go that way.

As for the main point, naww, Chad Ford is wrong here. Kevin Love will be off the board by #12.

If for some reason he is still hangin’ around when it’s our turn, well, I don’t see him as a great fit with the Kings necessarily, (I just think we need a lot more athleticism up front) but he’s gonna be a legit NBA player, so I’d listen to the trade offers that would no doubt be out there.

"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)

by Mucho Moss on May 27, 2008 11:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If he's still there...

They have to grab him.
Come draft day, all those GM’s will be thinking about upside and athletic ability, and there’s a possibility that Love falls all the way to 12. A very slim possibility.
There’s no way that Petrie passes on him if he’s still there. This guy is the most complete post player to enter the draft since Tim Duncan.

by Mackle on May 28, 2008 5:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Arms too short to box with Duncan

If Love was Duncan’s height and more importantly had Duncan’s wingspan, then I’d agree with this assessment. But at his height and with his shorter arms, he could struggle on D.

Love is a Petrie type, no doubt, but I don’t know that two Brad Millers playing together (Hawes and Love) makes sense. The benefit they provide is redundant and the weaknesses don’t get masked. I think it makes much more sense to pair a Love or a Hawes (the Vlade role) with a guy who can jump, rebound, block shots, play D.

Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.

by Holmdel on May 28, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

what you said.

"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)

by Mucho Moss on May 28, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exception

I no longer agree with the Miller = Hawes references. Hawes has shown the potential to be a better shot blocker (1.8 per 40, same as Noah), and he also flashed some low post moves, finishing with either hand. He could really wind up being more like Chris Kaman than Miller. The kid may not be Amare Stoudemire, but he ain’t Roy HIbbert, either.

If Love is the best player left on the board you take him, regardless of “needs.” That said, I hope that he is gone by then because he really doesn’t excite me as much as (say) Westbrook or Jordan

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on May 28, 2008 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just can’t see Jordan falling out of the Top 8/10. I understand all the risk reward business but realistically when the reward is a busniness class Dwight Howard in a draft seemingly bereft quality 7 footers you forgive his Frosh Sixth Man status.

And given the parity in this year’s draft I’m not sure it’s any more a risk to take Jordan at 7 then it is at 12. Save the saving power of draft pick attrition.

by rbiegler on May 28, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on May 28, 2008 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Love

He seems to have a wide range of basketball skills and thats what Petire likes, its debatable whether thats the right course of action. He was pretty solid for one year in college, wasn’t he PAC 10 player of the year. Wouldn’t he improve with age and a decent work out regimine?

by Murf on May 28, 2008 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Tim Duncan? wow...

that’s high praise, indeed! In fact, IMO it’s pretty much crazy talk to compare Kevin Love to Duncan…

We don’t have to sit here and recount the legendary success of Tim Duncan, who’s probably one of the 15 or 20 greatest players in the history of the NBA, but in a nutshell, here’s where his game differs vastly from Love’s:

Duncan is extremely athletic, Love is not particularly athletic. Duncan is just a shade under 7 feet tall, with huge hands and a long wingspan somewhere around 7’4” or 7’5”. Love is maybe 6’9”, and has a decent wingspan of about 7’0” .

In short, physically, Duncan is literally head and shoulders above Kevin Love.

Biggest of all, Tim Duncan is a truly great defender, and has been named to the NBA All Defensive first team eight times, and to the second team twice more. Love works hard on defense but simply isn’t quick enough or agile enough to ever be a great defender in the NBA.

So, while I think Kevin Love could be a solid NBA player and he obviously has talent and works hard, to say he’s “the most complete post player to enter the draft since Tim Duncan” (apologies to Yao Ming, Dwight Howard, Chris Bosh, LaMarcus Aldridge, Greg Oden, David West, etc. al) is just not fair or accurate, because frankly, he’s not that complete of a player.

"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)

by Mucho Moss on May 28, 2008 12:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Depends on how you define it

This debate centers on how you define a complete post player. The players you mentioned (Yao, Howard, Bosh, Aldridge, Oden, West) all had question marks coming into the league, and in some cases were complete unknowns. I’m thinking specifically of Yao and Howard. We weren’t sure if Yao was tough enough to play in the NBA, and at first he wasn’t. You could certainly still question his toughness. And the toughness has had a direct effect on his defensive ability. Dwight Howard was coming out of high school, and was drafted on potential. He’s turned into an excellent player, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t think you can immediately say that he was a complete post player coming into the league.

Personally, I’m not sure if I agree that Love is the most complete post player since Duncan. My guts say no. But the guy does have a lot of NBA-ready skills. Unlike many players in this draft, he is a known commodity. You know what he does well, you know where he struggles. In the crapshoot that is the NBA draft, I think this increases his value considerably, especially when you’re looking at the 12th pick. If he’s there, I believe we should take him. There’s a lot of talk about how he is too similar to Hawes. But who is to say that as either Love or Hawes gets older, they can’t gain some athleticism as they adjust to their size and add some muscle?

by Exhibit G on May 28, 2008 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To add to this...

I read that Love is actually getting in much better shape than he was while playing at UCLA, and that he got a personal chef which is a huge part of that. Apparently he didn’t eat well while he was in college (who does?).

I’m not saying that he’s going to start running opposing bigs out of the building, but it’s good to keep in mind that there is a difference in conditioning programs between the NCAA and the NBA.

Personally, I don’t think his athleticism is going to improve dramatically, but I’m very much in the “don’t pass him at #12” camp.

As a side note, this is the second year that a player I hoped would fall to the Kings had his draft status raise after the tourney (I was hoping Conley would be there last year, and he was ranked in the teens on most boards before OSU went to the Championship game).

by smgmatt on May 28, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Conditioning

I’ve read that as well in regards to his conditioning and eating changes.

by Exhibit G on May 28, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Love is Too Slooow

We need long athleticism – not just height or weight. We’re set (or commited) at 5, and he looks like a small 5 to me. We need one of the several tall, fast, big, dunkin’ 4s available and hope for some weight later. The PGs are all a reach at #12. Re-sign Beno, Try to get TJFord for Salmons, package the 2nd rounders for a high 1st or use both 2nds for PGs and pray.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jun 6, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't really disagree with you

I agree with just about everything you said. All I’m saying is that if Kevin Love is on the board at #12, the Kings should draft him.

At #12 he has too many skills to leave on the table because he’s “too slow”. That was a point I was making as well, his athleticism might increase with better conditioning/training in the League.

by smgmatt on Jun 9, 2008 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ming has short Arms

That’s why he’s not a shot blocker.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on May 28, 2008 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joe Alexander, just watching some clips, but I love this kids motor, tenacity, and athletic ability. he’s not a 1 or a 5, but i’d be very happy to have him

I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken

by joeytothelimit on May 28, 2008 3:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Here's a question

The Grizzlies have the #5 and #28 picks.

If there isn’t a good PG on the board at 12, what do you think of trading the #12 (and Douby?) for Lowry/Crittenton & the #28? Douby’s more a 2 than a 1 (which fits one of their needs), plus they’d move back up into the Lottery. The Kings stay in the first round (or you can think of it as getting into the first round again since they’d essentially be “drafting” Lowry/Crittenton with the #12).

Looking at Chad’s Mock that 28 pick would be in the CDR, J.J. Hickson, Nathan Jawai range, but that’s just a sample.

by smgmatt on May 29, 2008 7:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

I’d certainly rather have a talented PG than draft D’Andre Jordan or some other Saer-esque player with tremendous upside. I also would rather have either one of Memphis’ PGs than draft DJ Augustin with the #12. As you said it all depends on who is available. I would love to see CDR in a Kings uniform so if we could get him as well, all the better. In fact lets draft Joey Dorsey, trade for the #1, draft Derrick Rose and have 3/5 of the Tigers’ lineup. Honestly Hawes/Dorsey/CDR/Martin/Rose is an awesome lineup. Just a dream I know. Perhaps CDR and Dorsey are attainable but I don’t know if he slides all the way to our 2nd rounders.

by Mityt on May 29, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dorsey might fall, but CDR probably won't

I know Pookey’s pulling for Dorsey in a Kings uni as well. I thought about adding his name to the list of availables at #28 but I decided to keep it really simple.

I did read, however, that Orlando brought him in for a workout, but it’s unknown if they’re thinking about picking him up as a late 1st or if they’re looking at him in the 2nd (in which case they would need to pick up a 2nd Round Pick, since they gave theirs to Miami when they hired SVG). If they’re looking at him with their 1st, he won’t fall either.

by smgmatt on May 29, 2008 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs