#2 might get Griffin

by thedonald on Apr 21, 2009 4:34 PM EDT

Via Truehoop, here's a kind-of-convincing post from SactownRoyalty arguing that the Kings would probably take Rubio #1.

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2009/4/20/846667/why-history-suggests-ricky-rubio

Of course, the chance that the Wiz get the #1 or #2 pick is still pretty small, I think. But it's bigger than the chance that they'll get the #1 pick! Does anyone have the probablity distribution of what pick the Wiz will end up with?

This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

wouldnt shock me if anyone took rubio over griffin. hes a tremendous talent. now that kevin durant has really out-performed greg oden so far, some people may be questioning the wisdom if picking the bug guy just cuz hes big.

im almost hoping the wiz get the #2 pick just so we dont have to decide between the two

by joshp on Apr 21, 2009 5:44 PM EDT reply actions

Doubt it

But would be nice… assuming that Sac breaks the trend of worst team not getting pick since the changes in ’94.

by se7en on Apr 21, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think they'll pick Rubio.

They definitely need him after signing Udrih to that ridiculous contract, but the fact is, Rubio is still somewhat of a question mark. Who really knows how his game will translate in the NBA. I’m a believer in him but you still don’t pass up on the surest player. Screwing up a #1 pick can set you back a long way, just look at Kwame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laydODN6xVk

by hibachi on Apr 21, 2009 11:37 PM EDT reply actions

I believe they will. Thompson and Hawes are amazing young big men talents and Beno is mediocre.

by Fundefined on Apr 22, 2009 9:13 AM EDT reply actions

I agree

Thompson and Hawes are held in high regard all over the league, though, so there’s no reason one or both can’t be traded.

by pantslessyoda1 on Apr 22, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions

but why trade away a player - a known commodity

and then draft his replacement…..

Why not continue on the path you’ve already chosen…. Draft for need (a Point Guard). Since Rubio is considered by most NBA GM’s to be a future star, I don’t see any “question mark” there….

I do have a problem trading away good big men; especially talented guys that you know , that know your system and are progressing – just to draft another young big, that may NOT fit, may take some time to learn the system and the NBA, etc…

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Apr 22, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions

All things being equal, I'd agree with you

However, most scouts and analysts seem to agree that Griffin will be an all-star, whereas Thompson’s future is less obvious. I’d think that it would make sense for the Kings to draft Griffin, then trade Thompson for someone just as young and talented but who plays a different position (Jeff Green? One or more of Golden State’s young shooters? Some of Philadelphia’s young wings?), rather than draft a player who’s not as talented. Also, Thompson’s still only played one year, so I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a proven commodity; it wouldn’t be like when the Bulls sacrificed Elton Brand to get Tyson Chandler, giving up an all-star for a project.

by pantslessyoda1 on Apr 22, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Thompson has played only one year, Professionally

PLUS 4 years at Ryder… There’s plenty of data to support keeping Thompson… His improvement over his 4-year college career… His improvement this year.. from earlier in the year. His minutes, rebounding and scoring all went up during the year.

On the other hand, there are only 2-years of data to use to support drafting Blake Griffin.

Now, I’m not saying that Blake Griffin isn’t the best College Basketball player available… only that the second pick, Rubio may be a better fit for Sacramento… Considering the fact that they already have VERY GOOD young big men that have proven they can rebound, defend, block shots and score in the NBA – and no one to get them the ball. The Sacramento PG’s are, well I’ll just say it, they’re 2nd string bench players at best.

The 4-years that Rubio has played professionally in the toughest league outside the NBA, plus his Olympic experience, have convinced most NBA GM’s, Coaches, and Scouts that he will be a star in the league.

I’m just saying that it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to think that Sacramento would pick Rubio #1, given their needs.

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Apr 23, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions

oh yeah,

And Elton Brand wasn’t an All-Star when Chicago traded him. AND there’s nothing to say that Thompson can’t be a future All-Star….

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Apr 23, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Brand had put up 20 and 10 in consecutive years

He wasn’t technically an all-star since his team was bad, but he was producing like one (all star in game only?).

Thompson looks like a really special player and he had a great year, and I’d think that he’ll only improve as a scorer, but his game doesn’t scream superstar. I could conceivably see him as an Igoudala type who’s in the running for the all-star game but isn’t a year-in, year-out pick, wheras a lot of people are saying that Griffin looks like a franchise player. Personally, I don’t have a strong opinion on Griffin since I don’t watch a ton of college basketball, but I generally trust the consensus opinion.

by pantslessyoda1 on Apr 23, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Not

Its not a stretch at all, but lets not get too far into Thompson’s performance at Rider in your 4 versus 2 scenario.

by Jheiser3 on Apr 23, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

I wouldn't hold the Rider thing against him

I’d trust his numbers more if he’d been playing in the ACC or Big East, but the small college thing isn’t a huge deal to me, so long as he performed well against other athletic big men. I guess that’s another debate, though.

by pantslessyoda1 on Apr 23, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t hold it against him. I also don’t think that 4 years at Rider blows away 2 years in the Big 12. Griffin faced more pro players in those two years than Thompson did at Rider. So in this case 2>4.

by Jheiser3 on Apr 23, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not saying that Thompson looks bad

Just that Griffin would probably be considered a stronger prospect. If Thompson were in the draft this year, would people want to pick him over Griffin?

Like I said, just because Sacramento needs a young point guard (Beno is an excellent back up, but I’d never want him to be a starter) doesn’t mean they necessarily have to draft one, especially at the expense of getting a player who most people think will be more talented. If they really want to get Rubio and they’re married to Thompson and Hawes, they shouldn’t just pick him number one if Griffin’s the consensus choice; rather, they should trade down in the draft, maybe picking up a small forward prospect or a future first rounder. It’d be crazy to not maximize the value of something as important as a lottery pick, especially with a franchise that’s in such a fragile state right now.

by pantslessyoda1 on Apr 23, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

The funny thing is

Rubio is going to be a star…. and so is Griffin.

If Sacto gets the #1, and the Wizards get #2 – and if Sacto picks Griffin, that would leave Rubio for the Wizards…

Sacto needs a PG, Washington needs a physical low post player… and they’d get just the opposite of what they need…

But if Washington gets the #1 and Sacto #2, you know Ernie will draft Griffin , and everyone will get the player they need.

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Apr 23, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Interesting article in the Sacramento Bee

Ailene Voisin says the Kings are “desperately seeking a Point Guard”… and goes on to say that Geoff Petrie is taking a trip to Europe later this week. He’ll look at both Ricky Rubio and Brandon Jennings.

http://sacbee.com/kings/story/1799242.html

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Apr 24, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Just remember

Portland selected Sam Bowie and passed on Michael Jordan because they were loaded at guard. When you’re picking that high, always draft based on the bpa and not on need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laydODN6xVk

by hibachi on Apr 23, 2009 5:15 PM EDT reply actions

so true

When I read the “but we have X at that position” the player in question better be an All-Star. Take the best player, let them compete, find the best 5 guys on your team. If the pieces don’t fit you still have the best value to use in a trade. If you pick just for need its unlikely you get value in return.

At the same time, A LOT of people loved Sam Bowie’s game.

by Jheiser3 on Apr 23, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Bowie Rule

The Bowie over Jordan mistake wasn’t so much choosing a player for need, but choosing an injured player for need. Bowie missed almost 2 years with leg issues in college, so it shouldn’t have been a shock when he continued to have those problems in his pro career.

by hotplate on Apr 23, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions

true

but sometimes people make it sound like if Portland hadn’t taken him no one would have, when in fact others teams would have made the same mistake given the chance.

by Jheiser3 on Apr 23, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions

There is a lot of hindsight with drafts. Especially when it comes to Bowie and Jordan.

Interestingly, Houston took Hakeem first as the best player available—not picking for position, as they already had 7’ 3" Ralph Sampson.

by MR on Apr 24, 2009 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions

If Sacramento wants Rubio...

… they’ll draft Griffin and then trade down. If nothing else, I imagine the Wizards (or whoever has the #2 pick) would be willing to Rubio + expiring contract for Griffin + Udrih.

Sacramento gets the guy they want in Rubio, and they dump a bad contract in the process.

by nate33 on Apr 25, 2009 4:06 PM EDT reply actions