Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas? Would Sac do it?

[Denis998]

Ehh, seems a bit steep for Sauce Castillo, maybe 28+45 or something like that

[Eja117]

It might depend on who is available at 16. if it's a good big I say no

[Celtics18]

I don't think Sacramento would do it for 16.  To me it doesn't make sense to take the eighth pick from the previous year and trade him for the sixteenth pick the following year.

I just seems like way too early to throw in the towel on a lottery pick that the front office was obviously very high on one year ago.

[vjcsmoke]

LOL, I wouldn't even trade James Young straight up for Stauskas.  Why would we give up our early 1st rounder for him?  Honestly, I'd like to see a package trade for Cousins.  I'm not really digging this draft unless we can move up into the top 6.

[Ilikesports17]

I doubt they do it unless a guy like grant or Payne falls or they fall in love with one of those power forwards like lyles.

I never liked stauskas but you'd have to consider it for a guy picked so high just a year ago. Has good size and can shoot.

[slamtheking]

I wouldn't.  Stauskas showed nothing last year.  Maybe #28 but no way Sac would do it

[colincb]

I don't think Sacramento would do it for 16.  To me it doesn't make sense to take the eighth pick from the previous year and trade him for the sixteenth pick the following year.

I just seems like way too early to throw in the towel on a lottery pick that the front office was obviously very high on one year ago.

It makes a lot of sense if SAC thinks last year's 8th pick sucks based on what they saw of him in the NBA.  The Kings were trying to dump McLemore at his first (and second) trade deadline and he was a higher pick.

[Celtics18]

I don't think Sacramento would do it for 16.  To me it doesn't make sense to take the eighth pick from the previous year and trade him for the sixteenth pick the following year.

I just seems like way too early to throw in the towel on a lottery pick that the front office was obviously very high on one year ago.

It makes a lot of sense if SAC thinks last year's 8th pick sucks based on what they saw of him in the NBA.  The Kings were trying to dump McLemore at his first (and second) trade deadline and he was a higher pick.

I doubt Sacramento was ever trying to "dump" Ben McLemore.  They may have been trying to see what they could get for him because they thought he had good trade value, but that is entirely different than saying they were trying to "dump" him. 

I doubt they think Nik Stauskas "sucks."  Like most rookies, he didn't light the world on fire, but he showed some good signs, and I think it's a good guess that he'll continue to improve as an NBA player.

[Bucketgetter]

LOL, I wouldn't even trade James Young straight up for Stauskas.  Why would we give up our early 1st rounder for him?  Honestly, I'd like to see a package trade for Cousins.  I'm not really digging this draft unless we can move up into the top 6.

If you're not digging this draft after to 6, then why wouldn't you trade the 16th pick for Stauskas, number 8 last year? And why not Young for Stauskas, when Stauskas went 8 and Young went 17 and both had bad rookie years?

[loco_91]

I'd do it for sure, not sure why everyone is so down on Stauskas. He's an outstanding shooter-- much better than James Young-- with equally outstanding handles and feel for the game.

Plus, his rookie year wasn't even that bad. He only got 15mpg with a 14% USG rate, but he had a respectable .492 TS%. No signs of future stardom here, but also nothing to change the pre-draft perception that he can be really good offensively.

What I'd want to see video of is his defense. He could be very bad on that end, and it would really help his value, to me, if he showed signs of being only a little bad.

[Granath]

I'd do it for sure, not sure why everyone is so down on Stauskas. He's an outstanding shooter-- much better than James Young-- with equally outstanding handles and feel for the game.

Plus, his rookie year wasn't even that bad. He only got 15mpg with a 14% USG rate, but he had a respectable .492 TS%. No signs of future stardom here, but also nothing to change the pre-draft perception that he can be really good offensively.

What I'd want to see video of is his defense. He could be very bad on that end, and it would really help his value, to me, if he showed signs of being only a little bad.

Why is everyone down? Because he sucked last year. He may have been the worst player in the league to get 1,000 minutes. He showed nothing offensively, averaging 4.4 points in 15 minutes with an eFG of .445 and His defense was terrible. He was worse than a replacement player by a long shot.

The #16 pick for him? HAHAHA!!!! No way.

As far as comparing him with James Young, note that Young is two years younger and statistically they were very close, with Young having an advantage in most per-36 categories. Young is the bigger, longer guy too. That doesn't mean that Stauskas won't be a better pro, but it's probably a 50/50 as to which one will be the better pro (maybe neither is a keeper).

[saltlover]

I'd do it for sure, not sure why everyone is so down on Stauskas. He's an outstanding shooter-- much better than James Young-- with equally outstanding handles and feel for the game.

Plus, his rookie year wasn't even that bad. He only got 15mpg with a 14% USG rate, but he had a respectable .492 TS%. No signs of future stardom here, but also nothing to change the pre-draft perception that he can be really good offensively.

What I'd want to see video of is his defense. He could be very bad on that end, and it would really help his value, to me, if he showed signs of being only a little bad.

Why is everyone down? Because he sucked last year. He may have been the worst player in the league to get 1,000 minutes. He showed nothing offensively, averaging 4.4 points in 15 minutes with an eFG of .445 and His defense was terrible. He was worse than a replacement player by a long shot.

The #16 pick for him? HAHAHA!!!! No way.

As far as comparing him with James Young, note that Young is two years younger and statistically they were very close, with Young having an advantage in most per-36 categories. Young is the bigger, longer guy too. That doesn't mean that Stauskas won't be a better pro, but it's probably a 50/50 as to which one will be the better pro (maybe neither is a keeper).

He shot 42% from 3 once Karl took over and actually put him in situations to succeed. Coaching matters.

[Granath]

I'd do it for sure, not sure why everyone is so down on Stauskas. He's an outstanding shooter-- much better than James Young-- with equally outstanding handles and feel for the game.

Plus, his rookie year wasn't even that bad. He only got 15mpg with a 14% USG rate, but he had a respectable .492 TS%. No signs of future stardom here, but also nothing to change the pre-draft perception that he can be really good offensively.

What I'd want to see video of is his defense. He could be very bad on that end, and it would really help his value, to me, if he showed signs of being only a little bad.

Why is everyone down? Because he sucked last year. He may have been the worst player in the league to get 1,000 minutes. He showed nothing offensively, averaging 4.4 points in 15 minutes with an eFG of .445 and His defense was terrible. He was worse than a replacement player by a long shot.

The #16 pick for him? HAHAHA!!!! No way.

As far as comparing him with James Young, note that Young is two years younger and statistically they were very close, with Young having an advantage in most per-36 categories. Young is the bigger, longer guy too. That doesn't mean that Stauskas won't be a better pro, but it's probably a 50/50 as to which one will be the better pro (maybe neither is a keeper).

He shot 42% from 3 once Karl took over and actually put him in situations to succeed. Coaching matters.

Or perhaps he just got moderately hot in one month (March) on an extremely limited sample size.

With so few attempts I think it would be premature to make that assertion.

[crimson_stallion]

No.

In his rookie season he looked average in every possible way, and even before his rookie year I never saw the potential that other's seemed to see.  I never felt he was going to be any more than a solid role player off the bench when all is said and done. 

If you're going to take a gamble like that, then you may as well just take a gamble on the draft.

[colincb]

I don't think Sacramento would do it for 16.  To me it doesn't make sense to take the eighth pick from the previous year and trade him for the sixteenth pick the following year.

I just seems like way too early to throw in the towel on a lottery pick that the front office was obviously very high on one year ago.

It makes a lot of sense if SAC thinks last year's 8th pick sucks based on what they saw of him in the NBA.  The Kings were trying to dump McLemore at his first (and second) trade deadline and he was a higher pick.

I doubt Sacramento was ever trying to "dump" Ben McLemore.  They may have been trying to see what they could get for him because they thought he had good trade value, but that is entirely different than saying they were trying to "dump" him. 

I doubt they think Nik Stauskas "sucks."  Like most rookies, he didn't light the world on fire, but he showed some good signs, and I think it's a good guess that he'll continue to improve as an NBA player.

The Kings drafted a player with another high lottery pick after McLemore's awful rookie season in which it was widely reported that they dangled McLemore at the trade deadline.  The player they drafted played the same position as McLemore.  The next trading deadline it is widely reported that McLemore is being dangled again and rumored as an enticement to rid themselves of a bad contract. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's pretty much a declaration of no confidence on the face of it.

McLemore's PER stats this year were below Smart's on the offensive side of the ball and far below Smart's defensive +/- ranking. The problem for the Kings is that the non-sucking Stauskas was far worse and finished 433rd in PER and 403rd in defensive +/-. That's not even lighting a match, never mind lighting the world on fire.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015_advanced.html