Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Lakers Are a Broken Model

My Top Twelve

Thanks to Mucho Moss and pookey for the inspiration on the following, as this was born out of some of their comments from Original Draft Measurements.

Who would be your top 12 players in this year's draft? Not a mock draft 12, but the top 12 guys that you would take just for the KIngs. It's a pretty good exercise because it shows you who would be left for the Kings if your favorite 11 players were taken off the board. I was encouraged when I did my list, as it appears that the Kings are assured of a player that will have a chance to contribute to this team at some point.  (Editor's note - We understand the phrase "a chance to contribute to this team at some point" lacks any level of pizazz or sex appeal. But it is the 12th pick, right?)

In compiling my list, I sort of danced between need and talent. Sometimes those two criteria pair up, sometimes they don't. My top 12 isn't right, but it is my top 12 and I posted first, so n'yah!

My list:

1) Derrick Rose     I take him just ahead of Beasley because I think he would have a more positive influence on the games of Kevin Martin and Spencer Hawes.

2) Michael Beasley     I'd have no problem "settling" for him at #2.

3) Jerryd Bayless     Mayo might have been 3rd on my list if were not for Kevin Martin.

4) O.J. Mayo     Too much talent to pass on here. Maybe he can become a point guard, maybe not. I'll take him now and worry about it later.

5) Anthony Randolph     We won't see much of him this year, unless you intend on spending a lot of time hanging out at the Kings workout facility. But the thought of a bulked up Randolph playing next to Hawes in a couple of years? Mmm, mmm, good.

6) Kevin Love     I just can't drop his talent any further down the list, and I (briefly) considered putting him in front of Randolph. He may not be the shot blocker that we're looking for but I think that he could be Carlos Boozer or David West. Would you take Boozer or West to play next to Hawes? I would.

7) Eric Gordon     This guy is a 6th man of the year just waiting to happen, and he's the surest thing left on my board.

8) Russell Westbrook     I wanted to put Westbrook ahead of Love and Gordon, but that was because we need a point guard, not because he is that point guard. I think he could become a good NBA PG and I would love it if we got him.

9) D.J. Augustin     This kid is roughly the size of Chris Paul, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that CP3 just might make it in the NBA. Though Augustin is not the same talent, he is the guy on this list (exception: Derrick Rose) that would best benefit Martin and Hawes, among others.

10) DeAndre Jordan     This is a stupid wish and a prayer pick. With guys like Lopez, Arthur, Alexander and Gallinari still available, the only reason that I would do such a thing is because the monkey that's trying to fly out of my butt thinks that Hawes and Jordan would be an awesome pairing in a couple of years.

11) Brook Lopez     He should probably also be higher on my list. Had we not drafted Hawes last year I could have Lopez as high as #4 or #5 on this list. But we do have Hawes, so Lopez gets the #11 slot. I do like him enough over the remaining players to select him here and worry about a potential logjam of playing time later.

12) Darrell Arthur     I know that Joe Alexander is racing up the charts and he is a great athlete, but Arthur has shown a little more of that 15 foot and in game, has shown to be effective along the baseline, and he finishes well. His height and reach is not really that much smaller than Carlos Boozer, though Boozer would outweigh him by nearly 40 pounds right now.

And of the guys that just missed:

13) (Tie) Danilo Gallinari and Joe Alexander     These guys dropped down here simply because we are sick with wing men right now and it seems to be the easiest position to fill via the draft (Garcia, Martin), trade (Artest), or free agency (Salmons). Think about it. Al Thornton would have seen hardly a whiff of playing time last year had we drafted him (Dahntay Jones minutes, hello!). Why do we not want Gallinari and we were lusting after Yi last year? Needs. That said, if we got to the #12 pick and GP took either one of these guys over Jordan/Lopez/Arthur, you would not have to worry about me jumping off the Burg Dubai.

The Miss Congeniality award is presented to Marreese Speights. If for any reason one of these 14 players should fall off of my list, Mr. Speights will be added to the list.

OK, I've shown you mine. Now it's your turn to show me yours. In honor of the late, great Bo Diddly, who do you love?

 

 

 

Comment 23 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Uhm...

I would just take the best player available. I am not completely convinced Hawes will be the center of the future.

Sure he had a real nice end to the season, showed some incredible athleticism and looks like he has some tremendous upside but until he puts the whole package together, I’m not going to call Spencer, the center of the future.

BOOK IT!

by kingme18 on Jun 3, 2008 8:10 PM PDT reply actions  

But think about it...

Well you should because he will be. Whether he is good or not is still up for debate but he IS the future. Another center will not be drafted for at least 3 more years and even then who knows if you can get better quality than Spence. Unless a nig name FA drops in the Kings’ lap get used to “and now starting at center the 7 footer out of Washington #31 Spencer Hawes.”

by Mityt on Jun 4, 2008 4:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

ummmmm

With all do respect kingme18, I’m not sure exactly which games you were watching last year…But the words “incredible athleticism” and “Spencer Hawes” should NEVER be used in the same sentence. Unless, of course, an “incredible athlete” happens to dunk on Hawes.

Make no mistake, I like Hawes and think he will be fine in the future…however, lets keep it real!

by Hoops916 on Jun 4, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Look

There have have a lot of player that have had promising first years and flame out the rest of their careers.

Joe Smith is the main guy that comes to mind.

When I say athleticism I don’t mean players like Josh Smith who can fly from like the free throw line and dunk it on a big man. But Spencer is a guy that for a big man can play above the rim a bit. He did for a stretch of the season block a high volume of shots.

If you want to call Spencer the center of the future, which I think is a ridiculous comment unless your Tim Duncan, Yao Ming or Amare Stoudemire. Spencer needs to what he did at the end of the season on a more consistent basis.

He’s young and is probably no doubt a piece of the future along with Kevin but to call him the center of the future at this point is absolutely absurd.

I wouldn’t even call Greg Oden, a center of the future. Because potential and promise are intangible aspect of basketball that is impossible to measure.

BOOK IT!

by kingme18 on Jun 4, 2008 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's all relative

Brad Miller is the Kings’ Center of TODAY. Spencer Hawes is the Kings’ Center of the FUTURE. I don’t see anything wrong with that statement.

You point out Duncan, Yao, & Amare . . . so who’s playing center for the other 27 teams? And what about Dwight Howard, btw?

If you originally meant “center of the future” in a new prototype of NBA centers kind of way, then I don’t think you’ll find too much resistance, but to flat out say that Spencer isn’t in the plans as the heir to the 5-spot in Sacramento (as Miller was to Vlade), then that’s where I think you lose people.

by smgmatt on Jun 5, 2008 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Joe Smith didn't flame out; he was a role player and did that for a long time

He just wasn’t a franchise player. His being picked first overall proved how stupid Dave Twardzik is, and that’s pretty much about it.

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 Jun 9, 2008 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

why not another wing?

if joe alexander is around at 12, why not take him? might even be able to trade our pick for a player and a later pick and get him a few slots later. after all, ron-ron says he’ll be back (for one year), but who knows with him. i really like cisco, but he’s proven to be an effective player off the bench and should probably stay there. salmons is probably trade bait already, and i’d be alright with moving a wing player to make room for alexander. i’m not saying we could net a t.j. ford in such a deal, but we might be able to obtain a little help in the rebounding department.

alexander has some question marks in regards to his game, but he has a great motor and tremendous potential, and could, a la ron-ron, probably spend some time at PF against smaller line-ups. also, the great thing about drafting players with bigt “upside” is that they can remain trade commodities even when they flame out. while this is more true of big men (see Brown, Kwame, and Milicic, Darko), usually teams will try to pick up a guy with potential to see if they’re the ones who can make him into a player.

Beware certitude.

by Reges on Jun 4, 2008 8:09 AM PDT reply actions  

Another wing?

Who are we? The Atlanta Hawks?

"Rapport? You mean like, 'You run as fast as you can, and I'll throw it as far as I can'?"
-Jeff Kemp, 49ers quarterback, when asked about his rapport with wide receiver Jerry Rice

by Exhibit G on Jun 4, 2008 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

sheldon williams, lorenzen wright, anthony johnson… um, yes, we sort of are.

Beware certitude.

by Reges on Jun 4, 2008 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Nope

The Hawks made the playoffs.

Wakka wakka wakka!

by smgmatt on Jun 4, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

Oh snap

Allow me to re-phrase:

Another wing? Who are we? Billy Knight?

"Rapport? You mean like, 'You run as fast as you can, and I'll throw it as far as I can'?"
-Jeff Kemp, 49ers quarterback, when asked about his rapport with wide receiver Jerry Rice

by Exhibit G on Jun 4, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

Please

They made the playoffs in the Leastern Conference with a worse record than the Kings. The Hawks ought to be ashamed of themselves.

We could’ve definitely took Boston to seven with wins on our home floor and played much more competitively in Boston than the grounded Hawks.

BOOK IT!

by kingme18 on Jun 4, 2008 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Settle down

First of all, it was a joke. If you’ve ever seen The Muppets, Fozzy Bear says “Wakka wakka wakka!” after every one of his bad jokes. If you already knew that, I apologize, but you seem to have taken a throw-away comment a little too seriously (Exhibit G apparently got the joke).

That said, the Kings had one more win than the Hawks . . . ONE. The Kings also had one more win at home, with equal road records. The Kings scored almost 4.5 more points per game, but allowed about 5 more points to opponents. The point differential is half a point in Atlanta’s favor (although it’s negative for both teams).

It can easily be argued that the Kings play in a much tougher conference, but that’s just the way it works. The East used to be better, way back when . . . and the Kings weren’t making the playoffs in the “weaker” conference then. Don’t take that away from them.

Most people thought Boston (66 wins) would sweep Atlanta (37 wins) and ended up going 7 games. To say that the Kings would have “definitely” played better is probably a stretch. You’re basically saying that the Kings would have taken out Boston in Round 1, which I don’t think a lot of people would agree with, especially anyone outside of the Kings fanbase.

As a similar example, do you think that Milwaukee (40 wins, 8th seed in the East) or Philadelphia (38 wins, missed the playoffs) would have scared San Antonio (63 wins) for 6 games like the Kings (44 wins) did in the ‘06 Playoffs? What about the Lakers (45 wins, 7th seed)? I don’t think that could be definitively stated in any of those cases (Bonzi had a tremendous series), so how can you be so sure about the Kings this year? What did they show you that says they would have taken a 66-win Boston team 7 games and possibly eliminate them?

To take it a step further, I’d be curious to know how many people would swap rosters with Atlanta. Personally, I’d at least have to think about it.

by smgmatt on Jun 5, 2008 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hawks/Kings

Great question, smgmatt. I think that I’d take the Hawks roster right now. Bibby is my only truly overpriced player and he has only one year left on his contract. I have an all star in Joe Johnson, who ascended to near superstar status against the Celtics in the playoffs. Add to that Al Horford, Josh Smith and Marvin Williams. Acie Law could still become something and if not he’s not really costing me that much as a backup PG. Even if I extend both Smith and Childress, I stand to be well over $10 million under the cap in 2009, so I have some flexibility.

The Kings do have more depth, but they also have $37 million currently invested at C/PF, and they are getting a terrible return on that investment. Their best or 2nd best player (depending on your opinion of Artest) will need to be paid or let go in another year, and if he goes fair value will probably not be had.

Atlanta has more productive youth, the Kings have more to fix. Based on roster, I would take the Hawks. If I incorporate the mess that is the Hawks ownership, I probably take the Kings.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 5, 2008 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Couldn't have said it better

They’ve also got another ending deal with Pachulia’s $4M that could be used (in addition to – or instead of – Bibby’s) in case there’s another Cap Space Fire Sale somewhere in the league.

For the record: I, too, would swap rosters if we kept existing management/ownership.

by smgmatt on Jun 5, 2008 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's a nice comprehensive list Section (you know how much I hard about that crapola)

But I’m so confused on what each guy brings to the table I’m willing to settle spots 3-12 with a lottery raffle machine. Because as far as I’m concerned that’s how it will be decided. Maybe Mayo is worthy of that third spot, but I’m not convinced.

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 Jun 9, 2008 4:47 PM PDT reply actions  

(I harp about that crapola) is what I meant to say

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 Jun 9, 2008 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed 100%

All you have to do is go back and look at any draft, and the hits and misses are sprinkled throughout with hardly any rhyme or resason. Odds are that half of my top 12 will have limited to no NBA success.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 9, 2008 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

I still believe to this day (despite contrary statistical evidence)

that Chris Wilcox and Amare Stoudemire are nearly identical players. Wilcox just isn’t the same player, but in raw talent he is nearly identical.

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 Jun 9, 2008 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Heart - Desire

That makes all the difference – and its all that need be said. That given, I’d take him but don’t see the deal that could make it happen?

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jun 10, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

Randolph

I think we need that kind of athleticism, IF we could move up -

Draft Him, Feeeed him, Looove him.

The Wolves #3 (they want a center they could get later) and the Griz #5 (I don’t know what the hell they want!) might be available.
I’d try to get the #3, trade it back for the #5 and draft Randolph (I think).
At the end you might have moved JSalmons (traffic jam), gotten the number #5 and improved the (probably only one by then) second round pick which you use to pick that DLNBA PG whose name escapes me at the moment.

thats a lot of manuevering but it might be possible.

The real question is what the hell the Griz are doing….

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jun 10, 2008 11:38 AM PDT reply actions  

Lot of IFs

IF the Kings could get the #3 from Minny (#12, 2nd, and?), and IF Memphis wanted it badly enough (for Mayo perhaps?) then maybe the Kings could get Lowry (for Salmons?) in the process of swapping the #3 for the #5.

Lowry, Martin, Artest, Randolph, Miller/Hawes

But that’s a lot of IFs.

by smgmatt on Jun 10, 2008 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Sactown Royalty, the best community of Sacramento Kings fans in the universe. That's not my opinion; it's scientific fact.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Tyreke Evans, Selling Low, or Selling high?

Recent FanPosts

Small
Francisco Garcia Wallpaper/Illustration (UofL days)
Kings_sports_illustrated_small
Funny story
Small
As I sit here and watch the OKC Thunder come back against the Lakers
Waymantisdale-tz-150_small
the owners called down the thunder
Chief_petty_officer_small
Maturity in Sacramento Debacle
Small
Ryan Anderson to the Kings - Petrie's Gotta Give It A Thought
Chief_petty_officer_small
Open letter to the Maloofs
Small
Middle Ground on the Roster Situation
Chief_petty_officer_small
A Perspective on KHTK
Small
Terrence Ross Watch

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Editor

Loofie_small Tom Ziller

Joe_kleine_small section214

Demarcus_thornton_small Aykis16

Associate Editor

Coachie_small rbiegler

Banana2_small Exhibit G