You do realize that Hield's standing reach is 8'5", and Valentine's is 8'6" right? I only bring it up because your making an issue of Valentines length as though it's a big advantage. Hield weighs two more pounds than Valentine. Hield is the better athlete, and is the better shooter, and although there are questions about Hield's defense, they're different questions. Valentines strength is his ability to see the floor, and make passes, and make no mistake, he's terrific at it. I'd also like to point out that Jimmer put up pretty good agility numbers at the combine.
We're #8...
- Thread starter parker
- Start date
??
Hield is strictly a scorer, Valentine has a well rounded offensive game. Both are great shooters, both can score, but Valentine can set up his teammates as well. Of the two imo Valentine has the best shot at one day developing into an all star. He can rebound, pass, and shoot. He has good size as well. I'd take him #3 in this draft... I feel like he's gonna be one of those guys that people look back on in four years and wonder how he went so low.... I'm hoping that "so low" in this case is #8.
If you go back and read my posts, I'm saying that I don't want undersized guys and that I'd want guys with length....so it appears both guys you just mentioned,have it.....no? I have a concern with Hield, I think there's a concern with all of the guys at that point in the draft.....no? You have a sure thing at 8?
Agreed on Valentine.
I think Valentine is one of those solid all around and dependable players, much like Paul Pierce.
He is not going to wow you with his athleticism, but he will amaze you on how efficient he will be in the game.
His defense, I think will be adequate, if he is is in the right scheme, at least he puts in the effort.
Problem with GMs is they want to smash the home run and gamble on the "Next Big Thing". Valentine won't do that, but he will be a solid NBA player and possible All-Star in the league.
I think Valentine is one of those solid all around and dependable players, much like Paul Pierce.
He is not going to wow you with his athleticism, but he will amaze you on how efficient he will be in the game.
His defense, I think will be adequate, if he is is in the right scheme, at least he puts in the effort.
Problem with GMs is they want to smash the home run and gamble on the "Next Big Thing". Valentine won't do that, but he will be a solid NBA player and possible All-Star in the league.
A sure thing? Someone that I would bet my life on? Nope! Not going to happen. All I can do is watch a ton of college ball and then speculate on what I saw. It's very difficult to predict the future because there are so many variables that go into it. Even LeBron had a flaw, he couldn't shoot the ball very well. The knock on Magic Johnson was that he had no shot. Larry Bird wasn't athletic and couldn't jump. Pick your player, and I can name a flaw, so you never know.
I remember listening to Scotty Sterling, then a scout for the Warriors on the radio talking about Larry Bird prior to the draft. He said he was a slow white man who couldn't run, couldn't jump, would be a liability on defense, and all he could do was shoot the ball. How'd the turn out? So who am I to say that Valentine won't be a great, or at least a good player. All I have to go on is what I saw in college, and in college, on a team that stressed defense, he wasn't a very good defender. Does that mean he won't be able to defend in the NBA? Probably, but who really knows?
I remember listening to Scotty Sterling, then a scout for the Warriors on the radio talking about Larry Bird prior to the draft. He said he was a slow white man who couldn't run, couldn't jump, would be a liability on defense, and all he could do was shoot the ball. How'd the turn out? So who am I to say that Valentine won't be a great, or at least a good player. All I have to go on is what I saw in college, and in college, on a team that stressed defense, he wasn't a very good defender. Does that mean he won't be able to defend in the NBA? Probably, but who really knows?
Look, if you think that Cuz is the only one that hates losing your badly mistaken. Not everyone throws a tizzy fit when they lose. I hated losing when I played. To be honest, I was very bad loser. I used to quote Vince Lombardi all the time when he said, "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." However, I seldom ranted or even said much after losing. I was usually thinking about what the team, or I could have done differently. The only time I made a show is if I saw a teammate laughing or joking after a loss. But not everyone is outspoken. Some just withdraw. Not good to make blanket statements.
That's a bit harsh. Teague is not a dominant player, but he is a capable Pg with a well rounded playstyle.
From my point of view Teague is the better offensive player, because he has a wider arsenal of moves and is never in a hurry. On D a locked in Collison had the edge.
Now with Schröder you bet on his potential. Right now he is still too inconsistent and tends to make dumb decisions on the floor. His jumpshot is completely off sometimes.
But with his speed and aggressive mindset the guy can really take over a game. Schröder is ready to start, but he will need a couple of seasons and a good coach before he has completely gained control of his game.
From my point of view Teague is the better offensive player, because he has a wider arsenal of moves and is never in a hurry. On D a locked in Collison had the edge.
Now with Schröder you bet on his potential. Right now he is still too inconsistent and tends to make dumb decisions on the floor. His jumpshot is completely off sometimes.
But with his speed and aggressive mindset the guy can really take over a game. Schröder is ready to start, but he will need a couple of seasons and a good coach before he has completely gained control of his game.
16-29 2014-15
6-9 2015-16
--------------
22-38 overall
Darren Collison is not a high quality starting PG no matter how we want to talk ourselves into it. He may or may not be an adequate one, but it depends on you putting a helluva group around him to do the actual winning.
Mind you, Rondo was only marginally better:
29-43 2015-16
The 100% difference remains: Rondo makes bad players better. Collison does not. You want Collison there? Fine. Find a bunch of creative buttkickers who don't need help from their PG. You want to load up on defensive roleplayers and guys who can't help dribbling off their shoe? Better have Rondo there to create shots for them they can't create themselves.
6-9 2015-16
--------------
22-38 overall
Darren Collison is not a high quality starting PG no matter how we want to talk ourselves into it. He may or may not be an adequate one, but it depends on you putting a helluva group around him to do the actual winning.
Mind you, Rondo was only marginally better:
29-43 2015-16
The 100% difference remains: Rondo makes bad players better. Collison does not. You want Collison there? Fine. Find a bunch of creative buttkickers who don't need help from their PG. You want to load up on defensive roleplayers and guys who can't help dribbling off their shoe? Better have Rondo there to create shots for them they can't create themselves.
Soooo, what your saying, is the reason Collison hasn't been a winner is for the same reasons Cousins hasn't been a winner. Neither has had the right teammates around them. Actually, makes some sense. Statistically both Cousins and Collison had good years, so if they played well, and we still lost, then the blame must be somewhere else. Either the coaching, or poor play by their teammates, or both.
K
How is Jeff Teague not better than DC? The guy was a All-Star last year and was the starting PG on a team that won 60/48 games the last two years. The dude is amazing at breaking down the D off the dribble and can hit shots on the outside as well as create for others. Teague is 100% a starting PG in the NBA and a good one Collison is a fringe starting PG.
DC is underrated 'round these parts.
He played great starting alongside Cuz in the doomed Malone season.
He also really came on in the latter half of last season.
His contract is very team friendly as well.
The fit with Rondo is the issue. I don't like running two PGs and DC is way too good to be a 15 mpg backup. So, for the sake of roster balance, one of the two should go.
Rondo brings passing. He's also a triple double threat, which is fun. Our offense just hums when he's on.
DC brings better shooting, far superior defense, but isn't nearly the floor general Rondo is.
I also think DC wins be a large margin in the locker room. Rondo is a **** and displays all the negative traits that Cuz gets railed for, but in greater magnitude. OTOH, he gets along with Cuz, so that's great!
I think the decision will come down to the contract that Rondo will demand. I won't shed a tear if he walks. I won't be upset if we resign him on a good deal either. DC should be easy to trade if we go with Rondo.
He played great starting alongside Cuz in the doomed Malone season.
He also really came on in the latter half of last season.
His contract is very team friendly as well.
The fit with Rondo is the issue. I don't like running two PGs and DC is way too good to be a 15 mpg backup. So, for the sake of roster balance, one of the two should go.
Rondo brings passing. He's also a triple double threat, which is fun. Our offense just hums when he's on.
DC brings better shooting, far superior defense, but isn't nearly the floor general Rondo is.
I also think DC wins be a large margin in the locker room. Rondo is a **** and displays all the negative traits that Cuz gets railed for, but in greater magnitude. OTOH, he gets along with Cuz, so that's great!
I think the decision will come down to the contract that Rondo will demand. I won't shed a tear if he walks. I won't be upset if we resign him on a good deal either. DC should be easy to trade if we go with Rondo.
It might be a stretch to call Ben McLemore a defensive roleplayer but he is a guy who can't create for himself and often loses the ball when he tries to do so. And yet, his numbers went down with Rondo as the PG, even in Karl's more uptempo offense. Even comparing his per 36 or per 100 possessions his numbers either stayed the same or got worse. Rondo seemed to help Cousins improve, especially since he assisted on nearly all of his made threes.
I also don't understand the idea that you need more skilled "creative buttkickers that don't need help from their PG" to win with Collison but Rondo will elevate his teammates. With Collison starting the Kings won 37% of their games. With Rondo starting they won 40%. That's a pretty minor statistical difference.
And it's a somewhat misleading one too. I think the vast majority of Kings fans would say that this year's roster has more talent than last years, the season where Collison made most of his starts. And of course last season included the stretch that cost Malone his job after Cousins contracted viral meningitis. For that matter, most games that Rondo started, he had Collison as his backup/backcourt mate. In the games that Collison started this season it had to mean that Rondo was out. So I can't even concede that the 3% difference in winning percentage indicates anything worthwhile when comparing these PGs.
If it was DC that was a free agent and Rondo the player under contract with a reasonable deal I'd be fine with letting Collison walk. But it's Rondo who will be looking for a $15-$18 million deal and I'm still not seeing any real justification for spending that money to bring Rondo back. In fact the only real arguments I can think of for re-signing Rondo are (1) Cousins likes him/wants him back (2) Vlade & Joerger want to reshape the roster around what he does best or (3) in an offseason where every team has $30 million or so to spend the Kings might fail to sign anybody more talented than Rondo.
That last one is the only one that I would give credence to. Given how Joerger has talked about ball movement I doubt he's a huge proponent of an offense built around a ball dominant PG. And Cousins may like Rondo but all I care about (and all I think Boogie ultimately cares about) is winning games and I'm not convinced Rondo helps the team do that. But striking out on all their top free agent targets (maybe guys like Bazemore, Fournier, Batum, Anderson, etc) IS something I fear could happen.
Would that justify a knee-jerk signing of Rondo to a big money deal? I'm not so sure on that.
But I do agree with gunks that it makes little sense to keep Rondo and Collison. Either Rondo walks and DC is the starter or if Rondo is brought back then I think Collison needs to be traded to fix other holes rather than the Kings having the luxury of a high level backup PG for 15 mpg.
I also don't understand the idea that you need more skilled "creative buttkickers that don't need help from their PG" to win with Collison but Rondo will elevate his teammates. With Collison starting the Kings won 37% of their games. With Rondo starting they won 40%. That's a pretty minor statistical difference.
And it's a somewhat misleading one too. I think the vast majority of Kings fans would say that this year's roster has more talent than last years, the season where Collison made most of his starts. And of course last season included the stretch that cost Malone his job after Cousins contracted viral meningitis. For that matter, most games that Rondo started, he had Collison as his backup/backcourt mate. In the games that Collison started this season it had to mean that Rondo was out. So I can't even concede that the 3% difference in winning percentage indicates anything worthwhile when comparing these PGs.
If it was DC that was a free agent and Rondo the player under contract with a reasonable deal I'd be fine with letting Collison walk. But it's Rondo who will be looking for a $15-$18 million deal and I'm still not seeing any real justification for spending that money to bring Rondo back. In fact the only real arguments I can think of for re-signing Rondo are (1) Cousins likes him/wants him back (2) Vlade & Joerger want to reshape the roster around what he does best or (3) in an offseason where every team has $30 million or so to spend the Kings might fail to sign anybody more talented than Rondo.
That last one is the only one that I would give credence to. Given how Joerger has talked about ball movement I doubt he's a huge proponent of an offense built around a ball dominant PG. And Cousins may like Rondo but all I care about (and all I think Boogie ultimately cares about) is winning games and I'm not convinced Rondo helps the team do that. But striking out on all their top free agent targets (maybe guys like Bazemore, Fournier, Batum, Anderson, etc) IS something I fear could happen.
Would that justify a knee-jerk signing of Rondo to a big money deal? I'm not so sure on that.
But I do agree with gunks that it makes little sense to keep Rondo and Collison. Either Rondo walks and DC is the starter or if Rondo is brought back then I think Collison needs to be traded to fix other holes rather than the Kings having the luxury of a high level backup PG for 15 mpg.
That one thing is actually not true:
team------------------------------------ORtg----DRtg
Boston w/Rondo----------------------104.3---110.0
Boston w/o Rondo--------------------104.5---108.0
Dallas w/Rondo, w/Dirk-------------106.9---105.6
Dallas w/Rondo, w/o Dirk-----------96.3---106.4
Kings w/Rondo, w/o Boogie---------101.4---116.8
Kings w/o Rondo, w/o Boogie-------107.6---108.3
Disclaimer: numbers of possessions are a bit on the lower side, but when the same statistics is spewed at every stop, it gets a lot of validity. Boston's numbers are obviously post-Big 3.
Mediocre players seem to get by without Rajon rather well. Where Rondo shines is hitting his talented teammates with the ball in their good spots to make their live just a bit easier. All the more surprising, that Rondo didn't help Rudy's game, but that might have something to do with philosophical objections coaching staff had for Rudy's playing style and Rudy's overall apathy this past season.
team------------------------------------ORtg----DRtg
Boston w/Rondo----------------------104.3---110.0
Boston w/o Rondo--------------------104.5---108.0
Dallas w/Rondo, w/Dirk-------------106.9---105.6
Dallas w/Rondo, w/o Dirk-----------96.3---106.4
Kings w/Rondo, w/o Boogie---------101.4---116.8
Kings w/o Rondo, w/o Boogie-------107.6---108.3
Disclaimer: numbers of possessions are a bit on the lower side, but when the same statistics is spewed at every stop, it gets a lot of validity. Boston's numbers are obviously post-Big 3.
Mediocre players seem to get by without Rajon rather well. Where Rondo shines is hitting his talented teammates with the ball in their good spots to make their live just a bit easier. All the more surprising, that Rondo didn't help Rudy's game, but that might have something to do with philosophical objections coaching staff had for Rudy's playing style and Rudy's overall apathy this past season.
Oh no no.
I did a detailed dig on that in a separate thread a month ago. Just isolating Rondo oncourt vs. Rondo offcourt, here are the TS% numbers:
Cousins 54.6%/49.3% = +5.3%
Gay 54.4%/51.1% = +3.3%
Casspi 55.1%/63.2% = -8.1%
Collison 56.8%/60.3% = -3.5%
McLemore 55.0%/49.6% = +5.4%
Belinelli 57.6%/40.8% = +16.8%
Cauley-Stein 60.2%/55.0% = +5.2%
Koufos 56.2%/51.5% = +4.7%
Acy 67.6%/58.5% = +9.1%
Anderson 43.6%/49.5% = -5.9%
Curry 62.5%/58.9% = +3.6%
Butler 53.1%/47.9% = +5.2%
Moreland 0.0%/50/0% = NA
Aside from the true oddity that were the Omri splits, Rondo just down the line bumped everybody's offense, including notably Boogie's, which was actually a completely unacceptable sub-50% TS% without Rondo out there.
source: NBAwowy.com
I did a detailed dig on that in a separate thread a month ago. Just isolating Rondo oncourt vs. Rondo offcourt, here are the TS% numbers:
Cousins 54.6%/49.3% = +5.3%
Gay 54.4%/51.1% = +3.3%
Casspi 55.1%/63.2% = -8.1%
Collison 56.8%/60.3% = -3.5%
McLemore 55.0%/49.6% = +5.4%
Belinelli 57.6%/40.8% = +16.8%
Cauley-Stein 60.2%/55.0% = +5.2%
Koufos 56.2%/51.5% = +4.7%
Acy 67.6%/58.5% = +9.1%
Anderson 43.6%/49.5% = -5.9%
Curry 62.5%/58.9% = +3.6%
Butler 53.1%/47.9% = +5.2%
Moreland 0.0%/50/0% = NA
Aside from the true oddity that were the Omri splits, Rondo just down the line bumped everybody's offense, including notably Boogie's, which was actually a completely unacceptable sub-50% TS% without Rondo out there.
source: NBAwowy.com
Some sample sizes become unusable (see WCS, Acy, Butler), but here we are:
player-----Rondo/Boogie----Rondo/no Boogie------no Rondo/Boogie-----Boogie/no Rondo
Gay------------58.3------------------47.8----------------------47.4-------------------58.5
Mclemore-----55.8------------------51.9----------------------47.6-------------------56.6
Casspi---------56.7------------------52.9----------------------63.7-------------------61.3
Collison-------60.1------------------51.7-----------------------58.5------------------64.2
Belinelli-------59.1------------------56.1-----------------------41.6------------------38.8
WCS-----------62.9-----------------56.2-----------------------52.6------------------87.0
Acy-------------71.5-----------------59.2-----------------------55.7-------------------76.5
Koufos---------55.5-----------------56.4-----------------------51.2-------------------55.2
Anderson------34.5-----------------52.3----------------------49.4-------------------50.0
Curry-----------65.1-----------------55.9----------------------57.5-------------------65.6
Butler----------71.4-----------------18.2-----------------------48.8------------------42.9
So I stand corrected, indeed Rondo helped players with no ability to create their own shot. That doesn't change the fact, that Kings scored 6 points more without Rondo than with him, while Boogie sat. How that happened? Teams forced Rondo to be a scorer as 21.5% of possessions ended with Rajon being the last King to touch the ball, and Kings got 49.5TS% out of him. When Rondo sat, most of those shots went to Collison, Casspi and Curry(played less than 100 possessions with Rondo), who all managed to hit at much better rates. Also with Boogie on the bench Kings had 2+ less TOs per 100 possessions without Rondo than with him.
player-----Rondo/Boogie----Rondo/no Boogie------no Rondo/Boogie-----Boogie/no Rondo
Gay------------58.3------------------47.8----------------------47.4-------------------58.5
Mclemore-----55.8------------------51.9----------------------47.6-------------------56.6
Casspi---------56.7------------------52.9----------------------63.7-------------------61.3
Collison-------60.1------------------51.7-----------------------58.5------------------64.2
Belinelli-------59.1------------------56.1-----------------------41.6------------------38.8
WCS-----------62.9-----------------56.2-----------------------52.6------------------87.0
Acy-------------71.5-----------------59.2-----------------------55.7-------------------76.5
Koufos---------55.5-----------------56.4-----------------------51.2-------------------55.2
Anderson------34.5-----------------52.3----------------------49.4-------------------50.0
Curry-----------65.1-----------------55.9----------------------57.5-------------------65.6
Butler----------71.4-----------------18.2-----------------------48.8------------------42.9
So I stand corrected, indeed Rondo helped players with no ability to create their own shot. That doesn't change the fact, that Kings scored 6 points more without Rondo than with him, while Boogie sat. How that happened? Teams forced Rondo to be a scorer as 21.5% of possessions ended with Rajon being the last King to touch the ball, and Kings got 49.5TS% out of him. When Rondo sat, most of those shots went to Collison, Casspi and Curry(played less than 100 possessions with Rondo), who all managed to hit at much better rates. Also with Boogie on the bench Kings had 2+ less TOs per 100 possessions without Rondo than with him.
I am really hoping that by some miracle Dunn falls to 8 but I just cannot see him slipping past Timberwolves at 5. If they overlook him I would be amazed. Dunn, LaVine, Wiggins, KAT......heck of a core going forward with KAT easily being a franchise level player in terms of potential and production to date.
I will be interesting to see if we even explore trading up or trading back. Who we pick will give us some indication of the direction the team is heading in before the free agency.
I will be interesting to see if we even explore trading up or trading back. Who we pick will give us some indication of the direction the team is heading in before the free agency.
This draft being so wide open, Kings can see quite a lot of prospects without giving food for rumors, that they are trading down, but if we see guys with consensus projection in the #20-40 area, then Kings might be considering trading down.
Don't think Kings have assets to trade up, though Kings might tell agents about that option anyway, so that they they brought their clients to Sacramento. If Kings will indicate to agents, that they are staying pat, I don't think, that Vlade will see Murray, Hield or Dunn in Sacramento before the draft.
Don't think Kings have assets to trade up, though Kings might tell agents about that option anyway, so that they they brought their clients to Sacramento. If Kings will indicate to agents, that they are staying pat, I don't think, that Vlade will see Murray, Hield or Dunn in Sacramento before the draft.