Chad Ford's Mock Draft 6.0
Mario Chalmers? Really? Over Randolph, Speights, Arthur and others? Ford also has us using both 2nd round picks on high priced imports, while guys like Joey Dorsey, Goran Dragic, Pat Calathes, J.R. Giddens, Sean Singletary, Mike Taylor, Davon Jefferson and others are still on the board.
about 1 year ago
section214
74 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
i think ford is really emphasizing the kings’ need to fill the PG position. as far as the 2nd round goes, i agree with you…i’d snatch up calathes if he were around.
by sactoreg on Jun 23, 2008 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Randolph
I wouldn’t pass up on Randolph because the Kings, IMO have the patience to develop Anthony Randolph. The next two years, the Kings will continue to be in rebuild and if you can bring in a solid big-man coach and work on his size and weight issues, I think Randolph can still be a very solid 4 for the Kings.
To me Randolph’s combination of size, athleticism and upside are too tough to pass up. He also block shots and grab rebounds too. It’s hard to say no to someone like Randolph.
The 2nd round mock draft is crapshoot really.
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on Jun 23, 2008 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rebounding wise
He is on the same level as Arthur, despite having better tools. Arthur only plays about 24 minutes, while Randolph plays something like 32. If I remember correctly, Arthur’s rebounding p40 pace adjusted was 9.9
while Randolph’s was 10.2.
by dmj on Jun 23, 2008 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Delusional
That will NOT be our pick. Petrie must be sending some false signals to confuse…
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Depends
I think this pick truely depends on what Pretrie and Co. are planning on doing with Beno. If the Kings plan on paying Beno any significant amount o money, they will take a 4 here. If Petrie isnt sold on Beno being the PG of the next few years (And I dont believe he is), I don’t think taking Chalmers at this point would be too much of a stretch.
I also believe that Chalmers’ draft stock has risen due to Rondo’s strong play in the Finals. Although their games differ in many respects, they have similarities that many GM’s will surely take note of. Most notably, like Rondo, Chalmers was a highly successful PG at a powerhouse University who had success against tough competition on a nightly basis. Just a hunch! I think PHX would love to have him baclk on the roster after the failed Marcus Banks experiment!
I think that this year especially, we may see a few more “proven” players get chosen over some of their counterparts lacking the same college resume. Thats why I wouldnt be surprised if like Chalmers, Rush and Hibbert (among others) go a little earlier than expected-
by Hoops916 on Jun 23, 2008 10:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thing is… Ford has no idea what the Kings will pick. The Kings most obvious and glaring need is at the point guard spot because as of now, its being fortified by… NO ONE!
But Mikki Moore ain’t the long term solution at PF either.
I wonder how the Raptors feel about a Beno (s&t) and Douby for TJ Ford?
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on Jun 23, 2008 10:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm
I don’t think that you can sign and trade Beno, since he is an unrestricted free agent. Besides, Beno wants to go where he can start. That won’t be Toronto, not with Calderon there.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chalmers is almost a proto-Petrie point. Great shooter, few turnovers, not remotely athletic. I’ve felt since last week he could be a surprise choice at #12 …
... and I’m a little worried Ford has him here, because that second round mock is atrocious. Pekovic and Asik, two guys who are on the verge of signing massive Euro contracts? Riight…
by Ziller on Jun 23, 2008 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I should note
I would not be remotely mad if Chalmers were picked at #12, even if Randolph were on the board. I might root for Randolph, but I fully understand why you’d pick Chalmers. He’s going to be good, maybe Mike Bibby good.
by Ziller on Jun 23, 2008 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With TZ
If for no other reason than Petrie has earned the benefit of the doubt, at least as it pertains to draft picks.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be pissed
The team, the town needs some excitement, some exciting possibility.
Desperately
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m hoping the Raptors pull off the trade for Jermaine O’Neal. That would pretty much guarantee that they won’t take a PG, making it that much more likely that Augustin could fall to us.
Chalmers wouldn’t be that bad, however. He shoots extremely well (who would have thought?), seems to hold on to the ball well (i.e. the anti-Beno), and is a decent athlete.
I can’t see why he would be any worse of a pick than say Arthur, Randolph, or Speights.
by dmj on Jun 23, 2008 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure
that the trade would turn the Pacers off Augustin. He and Ford are tight, and the Pacers would still need insurance behind Ford. If the acquire Ford they will need to ship out Tinsley, as he will probably not want to play a supporting role (think pocket size K9(woof!)).
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
But without O’Neal there front court would be essentially barren, save for Troy Murhpy. It is not a certainty, but I think they would more likely opt for a big man after losing O’Neal. I hope that is how it would happen, anyway.
by dmj on Jun 23, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does it make sense?
Can’t O’Neil still opt out? Isn’t Toronto stripping thier front court in this deal for a player who may not be able to stay healthy and costs $21 mil? + they give up their draft pick?
Doesn’t make any sense to me so I think its one of those ‘you can ask’ wishful thinking type rumors from the Pacers.
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, I don't think having two 5'-10" point guards is a good idea.
Ford and Augustin are pretty similar players, I would think that Indiana would go big if they pull off a deal. Also keep in mind that if O’Neal is dealt to the Raptors, the Raptors might be drafting at #12 so I would look for a swing player to complement O’Neal, Bosh and Calderon.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Jun 23, 2008 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about JSalmons?
Salmons would fill thier swingman needs. I know many say it (I’ve said it too much) – but I think this is a win-win. (jangle the rosary beads)
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, Salmons works but...
the Kings would want Ford who I assume would be dealt to Indiana in the proposed deal. I think the Salmons trade is perfect for everyone, it just depends on what other offer are out their for the Raptors.
Also the #7 and Magette for the #15 and Barbosa????
is Ford smoking dope? Why would the Clippers make this move?
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Jun 23, 2008 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Clippers have a history of being idiots look at Olowokandi, Michael and Korolev, Yaroslav.
Virtually all of their picks have been busts. Shaun Livingston was injured but even if he wasn’t I still don’t see him as an all-star in this league. Kaman is their best pick.
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on Jun 23, 2008 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Clips would make the deal
because Maggette is in the last year of his contract, while Barbosa is under a reasonable contract for the next 3-4 years. Barbosa fills a need for them off the bench while freeing up the SF spot for Al Thornton. I don’t know that I would include the draft pick swap, though.
This is not too far flung from the Maggette to Toronto for T.J. Ford rumor.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that Magette for Barbosa is close but the pick swap?
There is no way that Barbosa is worth the swap from 15 to 7 let alone the addition of Magette.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Jun 23, 2008 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Admittedly...
it’s probably not a particularly popular standpoint, and as a basketball fan I certainly find it unappealing aesthetically, but I’ve liked the fact that in the last few mock drafts I’ve seen, the Kings have taken proven, if not sexy, college players over the Jordan’s and Randolph’s of the world. Risky it ain’t, but much of the Kings success in the past decade has come from management being smart (Petrie is a Princeton grad.) And I think Chalmers and Hibbert and honestly even Arthur are smart picks.
by rbiegler on Jun 23, 2008 11:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree on all counts. Also, Ford mentioned it but it deserves more attention: the smart teams are the ones boosting all these “proven” college players these past few years. Portland (with Roy), Sacramento (Garcia, even Martin and Douby to a degree) ...
by Ziller on Jun 23, 2008 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And as much as I love Bayless and Westbrook, I’m convinced Chalmers has a shot at being the second best PG in this class. It would take failure from those two and Augustin, but failure’s pretty rampant within the PG ranks of the NBA.
by Ziller on Jun 23, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't buy it.
Chalmers is a nice player but he’s never going to be a star. Randolph, McGee, Jordan could all develop into top tier players, they could also bust. The Kings are two years away from really competing and that is if they are able to sign someone big in free agency. Drafting a big with crazy upside and letting them learn behind Moore, Miller, Reef for the next two years, earning more playing time as towards the end of next season seems very logical. Drafting a middle of the road point that you may end up replacing to play behind Beno doesn’t really excite me. You also have to wonder where Beno’s head will be and if he will re-sign if the Kings choose a point with their first pick.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Jun 23, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the difference in our opinions is the difference in our opinions of Chalmers. You think he will be a middle of the road point. I think he could be Mike Bibby.
by Ziller on Jun 23, 2008 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like Hibbert,
Chalmers almost assuredly fills a need (back up PG at the very least), while many of the other players mentioned will need more time to develop. Risk vs. reward. I’m still not sure that I’m sold on it, but if GP drafts either of these guys I’m not going to jump of the Burg Dubai.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Might
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bibby was the 2nd pick in the draft...
Chalmers is still listed as a late twenties picks on many boards. Although I understand your thinking, I believe in a perfect world Chalmers is a top twenty point, not top 5 or top 10. He was not rated as a top 3 point guard in this draft until this week. This is typical last second surge up the draft stuff that I hope Petrie doesn’t by in to. Talent wise, Rose, Bayless, Westbrook and Augustin all better point prospects and thats not my opinion, thats the consensus. I know the Kings have a need at the point but drafting the best player available means the Kings should be choosing between Augustin (if available) or one of the bigs. If the Kings trade up to the mid-twenties, I have no problem taking Chalmers but 12 is too high just like 12 is to high for the Frenchman center making a late climb.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Jun 23, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When was Mike Bibby ever a top-5 point, save two weeks in 2002?
Draft value is a strange mistress. I honestly believe Chalmers is better than the mocks have him (which would mean better than the teams have him).
by Ziller on Jun 23, 2008 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because value ultimately is completely subjective. I remember Mel Kiper being interviewed about his mock drafts and big boards once and when asked why players that were nowhere near the Top Ten suddenly vaulted up there days before Draft day and inversely players in that same Top Ten were suddenly second rounders, he explained that the reality is until the last few days going into the draft no one knows what a G.M. is thinking. You can take game tape, a player’s body of work, the player’s measurables and use them to make an educated guest, but at best, it’s still just that, a guess. I consider myself pretty basketball savvy, but if Petrie feels there’s validity to Chalmers at 12 I can only question so much. There’s a reason he’s an NBA General Managers and we’re all middle managers playing dress up.
by rbiegler on Jun 23, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Middle Manager's!?
Then I must be an unpaid intern.
by moproblemz on Jun 23, 2008 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Then where’s my coffee, mo?
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Early Kings Bibby,
late Kings Bibby, or early Hawks Bibby?
It’s almost like the guy suffers from MPD (multiple personality disorder). No offense intended to any StR porters or their family members who may actually suffer from MPD.
The scab is off, the wound bleeds again.
-lietothegirls
by KK on Jun 23, 2008 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
porters=posters
Doh!
The scab is off, the wound bleeds again.
-lietothegirls
by KK on Jun 23, 2008 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suffer
from multiple lack of personality disorder.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You suffer from hilarious personality disorder!
I can only imagine your giggling wife, and eye rolling teenagers.
The scab is off, the wound bleeds again.
-lietothegirls
by KK on Jun 23, 2008 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes
it’s the other way around. My “humor” kills with the junior high set.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You knocked it out of the park!
Before I even tossed it across the plate. : )
The scab is off, the wound bleeds again.
-lietothegirls
by KK on Jun 23, 2008 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That pitch is high, slow, and directly across the plate...
The scab is off, the wound bleeds again.
-lietothegirls
by KK on Jun 23, 2008 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For whatever reason
And I don’t contend it makes much sense, but I feel like the Kings are in precisely the kind of situation where they should be as risk averse as possible. They aren’t drafting high enough to have that risk be that rewarding (nor, for that matter, are they so bad that the excitment over a prospect’s potential outweighs the excitement of the actual prospect.) Nor are they so good (or competent) that they can afford to let a player languish in the D League. They have needs, and I think having a competent player fulfill those needs competently vs. someone lighting up the Bakersfield Jam for a few years is more benificial, even in the long term, in part because I think this season is part of that long term. Again I’m not saying this is at all logical, but given the current needs of the team part of me thinks the reward of a proven, poised kid could outweigh whatever double double monstrosity Randolph develops into.
by rbiegler on Jun 23, 2008 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But Too High?
This is just not our pick unless Petrie is moving down (possible).
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 11:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He hasn’t moved down recently. He took Martin much higher than he could have gotten him. Ditto Douby.
by Ziller on Jun 23, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
But Peja was high (unkown) at #14, and Jason Williams was a surprise at #7. You never know what that crafty ivy leaguer is thinking.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not this draft I think
Too much intriguing size and potential available at #12. I still think only if they move down.
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Did we work Chalmers out?
???
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ford's logic is bizarre
Do we really need NBA-ready low-upside players? Does Ford really believe that we are competing for a championship next season and need one more role players to achieve greatness? Do the Kings even need Jarrett Jack 2.0?
It’s terrible logic. The Kings are at least several years from even remotely competing, with the contracts of K9 (Woof!), Shreef and several other mediocre contracts on the books. We are in the process of rebuilding and can afford to take gambles on high-upside players. The Kings need a quality big-guy to complement Martin. Randolph would have plenty of time to develop until we get rid of K9 and try to sign a super-star in 2010.
by Bitey on Jun 23, 2008 11:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
proven is better
Keep in mind that the game plan has petrie trying to free up cap space for a major FA signing or sign-and-trade in 2009-10. If the Kings want to attract a proven player, it is not just about money—it is about having enough good talent to surround a star player. The Kings cannot afford to swing and miss in this draft on a big who MIGHT work out, IF he decides to stay in shape, work hard, and do things like rebound. You get a proven guy like a Chalmers or a Hibbert who has the right kind of character to make a contribution and the Kings become a more attractive destination for a top tier, or even second tier FA. You swing and miss, and continue to have holes at multiple positions, then it is going to be a lot harder to get the kind of big name player Petrie is seeking.
Beware certitude.
by Reges on Jun 23, 2008 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i don’t ford is basing this pick on upside or definitively greater talent – seems much more like need. our PG consists of beno udrih, who could be gone before the end of summer. chalmers isnt a bad PG…he may not be a superstar, but he’s proved himself at the college level, and so he isnt much of a gamble.
fact is, we may not end up with beno, and if we do, he may not be the solution at PG if the kings want to contend. this does not change if augustin and westbrook are off the board at #12, and i think chalmers is good enough to warrant a pick to fill a glaring need.
by sactoreg on Jun 23, 2008 12:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If we draft Chalmers,
can I get my “Simpsons” off and nickname him “The Superintendent?”
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 12:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we just need him on the court with shelden williams….imagine “The Superindendent” and “The Landlord” ‘maintaining’ the lead!
(groan) :(
by sactoreg on Jun 23, 2008 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And come to think of it,
that would make Roy Hibbert “The Doctor.”
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's implied
"Being loquacious and being right aren't necessarily always the same."
GP, the man, the myth, the legend, puts the smackdown on Reggie
by SavageBeast on Jun 23, 2008 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy Hibbert is a Time Lord?
Sorry, I nerded-out there for a moment.
by smgmatt on Jun 23, 2008 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
drafting #12
We are not going to get a “star” at 12… that takes just dumb luck. We have to get a “player” that is, someone who is very likely to make the team, play significant minutes at some time in the near future, and add value. Hollinger gives credibility to the pick… for that matter, a national championship gives credibility to the pick… if GP makes the pick, that’s good enough for me.
by longtimelistenerfirsttimecaller on Jun 23, 2008 2:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
You COULD get a star at #12 – its just takes waxing the crystal ball up right. Plenty of guys go later and have developed into stars.
As for a ‘safe’ pick? I’m against it. Safe consigns you to mediocrity. To build a championship team you need to roll a few dice…..
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 2:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
pick a "star" from recent history
No. 12’s (not saying its impossible, saying its not a science)
2007 Thaddeus Young
2006 Hilton Armstrong
2005 Yaroslav Korolev
2004 Robert Swift
2003 Nick Collison
2002 Melvin Ely
2001 Vladimir Radmanovic
2000 Etan Thomas
1999 Aleksandar Radojevic
1998 Michael Doleac
1997 Austin Croshere
1996 Vitaly Potapenko
1995 Cherokee Parks lliams
1994 Khalid Reeves
1993 George Lynch askin
1992 Harold Miner
1991 Greg Anthony
1990 Alec Kessler
1989 Mookie Blaylock
1988 Harvey Grant
1987 Reggie Miller Muggsy Bogues Joe Wolf Tellis Frank
1986 John Salley John Williams Dwayne Washington Walter Berry
1985 Keith Lee Kenny Green Karl Malone Alfredrick Hughes
1984 Kevin Willis Tim McCormick Jay Humphries Michael Cage
1983 Derek Harper Darrell Walker Ennis Whatley Clyde Drexler
1982 Lafayette Lever John Bagley Eric Floyd Lester Conner
1981 Frank Johnson Kelly Tripucka Danny Schayes Herb Williams
1980 Kiki Vandeweghe Mike Woodson
by longtimelistenerfirsttimecaller on Jun 23, 2008 2:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Kobe went #13
Obviously there’s a big difference in analyzing the skill level of a high school vs. college player, but there are still “stars” waiting out there outside the top-10 if a team knows how to draft.
And GP knows how to draft.
Reggie Miller went #11, Richard Jefferson #13, Karl Malone #13, Peja #14, Tim Hardaway and Clyde the Glide went #14 as well.
But yeah, there are a lot of stiffs on that list as well. And teams must be analyzing talent better, because those guys aren’t slipping down to the tail end of the lottery much anymore.
"Boo Lakers! Boo Kobe! Go Kings! Go Giants! Boo Dodgers!" - my 5 year-old daughter - 4/15/08
by otis29 on Jun 23, 2008 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stars
I remember reading somewhere (probably here) that superstar player very, very rarely go past #5 in the draft. You can find exceptions, but the article I read did some pretty comprehensive statistical analysis that basically says if you’re outside the top 5, you’re almost certainly not getting a superstar. That being said, getting more solid guys players is always a good thing.
by Carl on Jun 23, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if baby jordan is not a star
then I don’t know who is!
by Travis Mays Hayes on Jun 23, 2008 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
take a chance
I think that if you take the “safe pick” you are almost certainly not getting a star, but if you take a chance ala Kobe, Bynum, Peja, you might get a star and you might get a bust. Let’s take a chance. This team has nothing to lose, lets all be honest.
by Travis Mays Hayes on Jun 23, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
crap...
from 1987 on, the number 12 pick is the second player in each list….
by longtimelistenerfirsttimecaller on Jun 23, 2008 2:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There really isn't a ton of talent there...
that’s pretty much why none of us are that worried about how Petrie goes. I think we all want to see Augustin at #12, but I don’t think even that will happen. Again, we just need to rely on Petrie and his successful draft history to guide us.
by moproblemz on Jun 23, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andrew Bynum...
The Lakers took Bynum with the 10th pick, NBA experts chastised them for making a horrible pick and again when the Lakers refused to trade him for Kidd. Before the injury, Bynum looked every bit the stud post player the Lakers needed and with him the Championship may have gone a different way. Were the Lakers in the position to take on a project while Kobe Bryant wasted the prime of his career? No but they made the pick any way because it was best for the franchise. It is this success that makes both Randolph and Jordan very appealing.
If you hit it big and have two major pieces to the puzzle (Martin and which ever pick) when you rid yourself of Miller, SAR, K-9 and Moore then you can concentrate on specific players and over pay them to get them to come here. If Petrie wiffs then big deal, you still have cap space in two years and another first rounder next year. This team won’t contend next year or the year after barring some sort of miracle so I say swing for the fences. Chalmers, although a nice player, looks more like a sacrifice bunt. Way too safe for my blood.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Jun 23, 2008 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry this is a response to RBiegler's "For Whater Reason" post.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Jun 23, 2008 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And
The Warriors took Patrick O’Bryant at #10 and the Sonics took Saer Sene at #10. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just stating the risk since you already stated the reward.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 23, 2008 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Thing
Randolph has shown he has the ability. With LSU, you saw the jaw-dropping athleticism and the off your feet shot blocking. Randolph hit perimeter shots and scored inside. Randolph has skills any big man salivate over.
Jordan? Not so much. POB and Saer didn’t have those skills. I’ll tell you right now, DeAndre Jordan, Javale McGee, they will be busts in the NBA.
Randolph with the right coaching and hopefully fully motivated and committed can become one of the better forwards in the league and will be an excellent compliment to Kevin and Spencer forming a nice trio for the Kings.
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on Jun 23, 2008 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My thooughts on Bymun
Bynum looks like he is one max extension from putting on 40 pounds and becoming Eddy Curry/Jerome James. Lets not let his 8 weeks of greatness over shadow that he was an overwieght kid in high school that played less than half of his games there. Now, his 6 week knee injury quickly turned in to 8 weeks, then season ending and still not looking promising. I really dont see greatness in his future.
(Yes, I realize this post could be either bite me in the ass in 4 years, or make me look like a genious. I stand by my statement).
Wait....Why is everybody clapping? Everyone around me is clapping.... I guess I should be clapping too... GO LAKERS!!! I hate living in So Cal
by 27freethrows on Jun 23, 2008 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*Bynum
Dammit.
Wait....Why is everybody clapping? Everyone around me is clapping.... I guess I should be clapping too... GO LAKERS!!! I hate living in So Cal
by 27freethrows on Jun 23, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You might be right but he still would have yielded Jason Kidd.
There are bust from 1-30 in the draft. Randolph was considered a top 5 pick two weeks ago, Jordan is touted as possibly the next Dwight Howard. Both players could end up being garbage but so could Chalmers, Rose, Westbrook, Love, Lopez. Give me a high ceiling prospect, work with him day and night and see what you can make out of him.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Jun 23, 2008 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree
I’d mainly have a problem with this pick because I think it would be a case of drafting for position need more then drafting the best player on the board (doesn’t Chalmers remind you of a younger Anthony Johnson?). As you all no, this is where teams get in trouble. This pick would be a definite reach. Personally I feel the Kings should look for a PG in the second round, or sign a veteran PG with the mid level exception.
by deepnu666 on Jun 23, 2008 5:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't worry too much
Chad Ford’s record for getting mock drafts is pretty bad.
That said, I’d much rather take Robin Lopez or Jason Thompson (who seems to me like the Kevin Martin of big men) than Chalmers.
by LPKingsFan on Jun 23, 2008 5:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
