Author Topic: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas? (Read 9939 times)

LarBrd33 · « **on:** June 24, 2015, 01:28:47 AM »

Well I was reading the article about DeMarcus Cousins trade scenarios and noticed that many of the scenarios involved the Kings throwing in Nik Stauskas. I started writing about why I found that interesting and got a bit carried away, as usual. Then I started thinking about it... the 2014 Draft was in my opinion a lot better than this one (12 prospects in the top three tiers vs 8 this year according to Chad Ford's sources). #16 is likely to net a borderline role player. Stauskas is undervalued right now for obvious reasons, but he was seen as a guy with a future as an NBA starter and it seems like his shooting ability would fit in well with this system. I have to wonder, would you guys rather roll the dice on whatever is available at #16 or roll the dice on Nik Stauskas? My thoughts on Stauskas from the other thread:

"Most of these trades include the Kings giving up Nik Stauskas. I would love to snatch Stauskas on the cheap. I wasn't all that high on him heading into the draft last year. I think I had him 10th on my board. And I actually spent a lot of time on this forum arguing with fans here about McLemore vs Stauskas. It was basically me vs everyone else. I was convinced that McLemore was going to improve in year 2 ... and everyone else kept telling me how 'vastly superior" Stauskas was. Then McLemore shows major improvement (one of the only players in the entire league to start all 82 games) and Stauskas gets straight up buried. Now everyone thinks he's trash, apparently.

Yes, he struggled in Sacramento, but that entire team was dysfunctional. Pre all-star he averaged a disgusting 3.4 points in 13.6 mpg with shooting percentages that would make rookie Avery Bradley uneasy: .328/.261/.857 ... That's awful. Just awful. Hard not to look at his rookie season and call him anything other than a brutal disappointment.

All that said, the opinion on Stauskas has swung too far in the negative direction.

Here's what's funny about this...

Stauskas WAS a lights-out shooter in College. His Sophomore year at Michigan he shot: 17.5 points, 3.3 assists, 2.9 rebounds, 47%/44%/82%.

Like McLemore before him, a rough rookie season doesn't necessarily mean you're an automatic bust. He has legit size for a shooting guard.

In Chad Ford's draft preview, he polled teams around the league to determine their draft "tiers". http://hawksquawk.net/community/topic/394690-chad-ford-ranking-draft-prospects-by-tiers-2014/ ... Stauskas was in "Tier 3" (guys who project as NBA starters) along with Gary Harris and Doug McDermott. Interestingly enough, those guys were all ranked higher than Tier 4 players which included Zach LaVine, Jusuf Nurkic, Elfrid Payton and James Young. Guys in Tier 3 this year: WCS, Winslow and Mario... This gives you an idea of how Stauskas was perceived pre-draft.

To further highlight how he was perceived pre-=draft, check out the Kings war room on draft night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEN6ad_Aw-M

Skip to the 6 minute mark if you haven't seen it. They were actually concerned that Boston was going to take Stauskas at #6... and actually celebrated when Boston selected Smart: "That's good for us!!... That means Randle is going 7th!... We'll get Stauskas!" ... Btw, watch that video immediately if you haven't seen it. It gives you great insight into what a disaster that Kings front office is. It's utterly fascinating to see Vivek Ranadive meddling. It's one thing to read rumors about it. It's another to actually see it in action.

So yes, Stauskas was a brutal disappointment in the few minutes he got off the bench for the Kings. But once George Karl arrived, there was actually a small glimmer of hope.

March numbers: 14 games - 19.6 mpg, 7.4 points, .455/.471/.850

Those shooting percentages were extraordinarily high. His post-allstar numbers in general had him shooting 42%/42%/86%.

There is more evidence to support the idea that Nik Stauskas is an elite-level shooter than not.

From a guy who wasn't high on him before the draft... if you can get Nik Stauskas as a "throw-in" in a Cousins trade... that's pretty rad. I'd gladly give him a shot as the starting SG in a Brad Stevens offense. Are you telling me that you wouldn't want to see him on a competent franchise in a functional offense with a intelligent coach... without Rudy Gay's ballhoggery and a muddled roster situation clouding his path?"

Stauskas is reportedly available, btw: "Nik Stauskas, the Kings' first-round pick in 2014, continues to be available in trade talks, sources say." http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/ken-berger/25221981/draft-buzz-debate-within-knicks-on-whether-to-trade-4th-pick

LarBrd33 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:43:57 AM »

A couple more random thoughts:

I think Avery Bradley is a good candidate to be moved this summer... so if we somehow snatch a lotto pick out of Bradley and select a big, we'll have an opening at SG. I wouldn't mind having a shooting guard who is actually shooting guard sized (Bradley is 6'2 180 and Stauskas is 6'6 205). Also, in the slight chance we move Marcus Smart in a package for a star... we'll have an opening for a guard. I sure wouldn't mind having one who can shoot.

I had Stauskas 10th on my board. According to Ford, teams around the league had him in "tier 3" which would have put him 10th-12th. He ended up getting taken 8th.

In this draft, however. I would possibly take Stauskas as high as 9th. I get that fans look at the stats and assume his career is over, because he struggled as a rookie. I get that. But it seems to me the kid CAN shoot. His shooting percentages during the second half prove this. I had another thread similar to this a month ago where I argued in favor of trading #16 for Anthony Bennett. I feel similar about this. You might not love Stauskas/Bennett. I don't love Stauskas/Bennett. But are you going to love whatever prospect we end up picking #16 more? Unlikely. Judging by the track record of this forum... all those prospects you love right now will be labelled busts within a couple months after they inevitably struggle.

And because I didn't point it out in the above post. Here's how McLemore (who everyone was convinced Stauskas was better than a year ago) improved from year 1 to 2:

Year 1: 8.8 points, .376/.320/.804.
Year 2: 12 points .437/.358/.813

I wanted to take a risk on McLemore a year ago and people had already given up on him. I'm willing to take a risk on Stauskas now.

#16 for Stauskas. Which team says no?

tarheelsxxiii · « **Reply #2 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:45:12 AM »

Absolutely amazing video, TP and ty. It's too funny... I genuinely believe half of the posters here could probably do their job better, especially the small bald dude. It hurts to watch, but it's so fun.

Monkhouse · « **Reply #3 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:47:28 AM »

I actually think Nik Stauskas is a fantastic option. I wouldn't mind the return of him, or either Ben McLemore if they wanted us to take on more worse contracts.

Honestly, I'm keeping my fingers crossed, and seeing if the Celtics could pull off a 3 way trade.

I suspect Denver is enarmored with Nurkic, and even though hes a good young player, Cousins is a huge upgrade.

Now if Denver maybe wanted to go for a little longer rebuild, we could offer them more picks, and the Kings could get Faried, Lawson, Bradley, etc.

Getting back to the original topic, Labrd, I actually think the draft this year is overhyped. Nik still has plenty of room to develop, and was lights out shooter in his college years.

You know who else reminds me of Nik, although slightly a lot shorter, and unable to get room to develop?

Jimmer Fredette.

crimson_stallion · « **Reply #4 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:47:45 AM »

Absolutely not in a billion years.

I don't see Stauskas becoming any more than a role player, an opinion that hasn't changed since prior to the 2014 draft.

The difference between Stauskas and McLemore is that McLemore has very impressive athletic tools as well as some good defensive potential - this opens up at least SOME hope that he could one day become hopefully (a) an All-Star or otherwise (b) at good two-way player.

I don't really see that kind of potential in Stauskas at all.

LarBrd33 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:48:59 AM »

Quote from: tarheelsxxiii on June 24, 2015, 01:45:12 AM

Absolutely amazing video, TP and ty. It's too funny... I genuinely believe half of the posters here could probably do their job better, especially the small bald dude. It hurts to watch, but it's so fun.

I've watched that video about 5 times and each time I'm like, "Wait seriously... is that really how it works?"... "Hey guys... Imma holla at Philly real quick and see if I can get Embiid... let's do it!!... Let's be brash!".. and then seconds later, "They said no..

... oh well". It's crazy. Then if you read any of the stuff about the Kings following that (firing their coach after Cousins goes down with an injury... bringing in Vlade freakin Divac to be their GM even though they already had two guys acting as GM more or less)... it's just a complete disasaster.

For context: The young guys they bring in were part of some fan reach-out/marketing thing I think. They brought in fans to pitch who they thought the team should draft. The idea was that it shows the team was being interactive with the fan community, but also thinking outside the box and listening to every possible suggestion. I'm not sure that premise is clear in the video... but that's why those young guys come in and start pitching their draft board to the older execs. Pretty sure those guys were selected from the "fan community". But all the stuff later in the war room was the actual team reps making their big moves.

LarBrd33 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:54:47 AM »

Quote from: crimson_stallion on June 24, 2015, 01:47:45 AM

Absolutely not in a billion years.

I don't see Stauskas becoming any more than a role player, an opinion that hasn't changed since prior to the 2014 draft.

The difference between Stauskas and McLemore is that McLemore has very impressive athletic tools, whereas (from what I've seen) Stauskas doesn't.

Ok all that said... how convinced are you that the players available at #16 are going to be anything more than "role players"? I want us to trade up as much as you do. I want us to trade out, actually... I'm not high on this draft at all. I've been vocal that I see a guy like WCS (who might go as high as 3rd) as a Bismack Biyombo doppleganger. Are you telling me that you are more confident in whatever scrap heap prospects are available #16 over Stauskas? At least Stauskas can shoot. Perhaps he can develop into a JJ Reddick type.

I get that we always have the "grass is always greener" mentality. The lure of the unknown is tantalizing. Nurkic fell to #16 last year (partially due to expectations of him staying overseas, but that's kinda off topic)... So you see something like that and you gotta figure, "ooOo... maybe we can get a star by standing pat!!"... That's super unlikely. Just like my Anthony Bennett suggestion, my preference is to do something more lofty and exciting like trade out for a star... but in a bubble, would you rather have #16 or Bennett? Would you rather have #16 or Stauskas? On both, I'd take the undervalued higher ceiling prospect over gambling on whatever we're getting at 16.

This is not without concerns, though. Ainge has only done this once before, if I remember correctly. Ainge didn't like the 2006 draft so he traded the #7 pick (Randy Foye) for Sebastian Telfair. The gamble for Telfair didn't pay off (though we did get the Theo Ratliff contract in that same deal... which paid off a couple years later for us, but that's not really relevant).... but it's not like Foye lit the world on fire either.

jpotter33 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:59:58 AM »

Trade #16 from a weaker draft for #8 from a stronger draft? Sign me up.

He might end up being a bit redundant if Young ever pans out, but he does seem to fit a great need with us and complements Smart very well.

Monkhouse · « **Reply #8 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:00:09 AM »

Stauskas is at least going to be better than half the players drafted at #16.

I would still love to snag him in a package deal if we could get Cousins.

LaBrd would you be okay with bringing back Rondo then, if we brought in Cousins?

Rida · « **Reply #9 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:03:24 AM »

Quote from: Monkhouse on June 24, 2015, 02:00:09 AM

Stauskas is at least going to be better than half the players drafted at #16.

I would still love to snag him in a package deal if we could get Cousins.

LaBrd would you be okay with bringing back Rondo then, if we brought in Cousins?

If Portis, Dekker, Oubre or Harell or even RJ Hunter are available, hell no.

Stauskas is a bust and only got picked that high because Vivek had a man crush on him

tarheelsxxiii · « **Reply #10 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:05:37 AM »

Quote from: LarBrd33 on June 24, 2015, 01:48:59 AM

Quote from: tarheelsxxiii on June 24, 2015, 01:45:12 AM
Absolutely amazing video, TP and ty. It's too funny... I genuinely believe half of the posters here could probably do their job better, especially the small bald dude. It hurts to watch, but it's so fun.
I've watched that video about 5 times and each time I'm like, "Wait seriously... is that really how it works?"... "Hey guys... Imma holla at Philly real quick and see if I can get Embiid... let's do it!!... Let's be brash!".. and then seconds later, "They said no.. ... oh well". It's crazy. Then if you read any of the stuff about the Kings following that (firing their coach after Cousins goes down with an injury... bringing in Vlade freakin Divac to be their GM even though they already had two guys acting as GM more or less)... it's just a complete disasaster.

For context: The young guys they bring in were part of some fan reach-out/marketing thing I think. They brought in fans to pitch who they thought the team should draft. The idea was that it shows the team was being interactive with the fan community, but also thinking outside the box and listening to every possible suggestion. I'm not sure that premise is clear in the video... but that's why those young guys come in and start pitching their draft board to the older execs. Pretty sure those guys were selected from the "fan community". But all the stuff later in the war room was the actual team reps making their big moves.

The young guys are pretty funny, look so clueless and insecure about their ideas. But the old balding guy is an absolute legend. He gives me the intuition that if no other amazing offers were on the table, he would flip Boogie for Smart and a pick.

How can people find those positions of power when they're so incredibly incompetent? It's jarring. I feel like I just watched an anti-America documentary or something.

LarBrd33 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:07:37 AM »

Quote from: Monkhouse on June 24, 2015, 02:00:09 AM

Stauskas is at least going to be better than half the players drafted at #16.

I would still love to snag him in a package deal if we could get Cousins.

LaBrd would you be okay with bringing back Rondo then, if we brought in Cousins?

I created the "Bring Back Rondo!" thread 30 seconds after he was traded.

There's a scenario where I'd totally be willing to bring back Rajon. I never hated the guy. If you build a system for him and surround him with shooters, he can still get you lots of stats. Whether or not that results in wins... well... depends. But I don't think Rajon is "done"... he just got put in a system that didn't make sense for him. The Brad Stevens system doesn't make sense for Rajon, either. So in most scenarios, bringing him back doesn't really work. You'd have to tailor a system to his strengths and weaknesses and be willing to let him control the ball 99% of the time. He's a complete liability without the ball. All the things I criticized him for in Boston were proven true in Dallas. But there is a particular scenario where I'd be on board with it.

Interestingly, reports are that Rondo and the Kings have mutual interest. That might be a good fit for im, actually. McLemore and Stauskas can both shoot. Put the ball in Rondo's hands, surround him with shooters... and maybe it works.

trickybilly · « **Reply #12 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:13:43 AM »

no.

I like stauskas and think he deserves to play, but Stevens system thrives with high-motor athletes on the court.

tarheelsxxiii · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:14:03 AM »

Quote from: LarBrd33 on June 24, 2015, 02:07:37 AM

Quote from: Monkhouse on June 24, 2015, 02:00:09 AM
Stauskas is at least going to be better than half the players drafted at #16.

I would still love to snag him in a package deal if we could get Cousins.

LaBrd would you be okay with bringing back Rondo then, if we brought in Cousins?
I created the "Bring Back Rondo!" thread 30 seconds after he was traded.

There's a scenario where I'd totally be willing to bring back Rajon. I never hated the guy. If you build a system for him and surround him with shooters, he can still get you lots of stats. Whether or not that results in wins... well... depends. But I don't think Rajon is "done"... he just got put in a system that didn't make sense for him. The Brad Stevens system doesn't make sense for Rajon.

Love Rondo, and wondering if Stevens' system is a product of the roster he was given. I wouldn't be surprised if they could co-exist.. definitely from a personality standpoint b/c Stevens seems like a sweetheart, but he also seems capable to make much out of nothing. If he is versatile, it seems like it could work. Won't happen, but could work.

crimson_stallion · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:15:53 AM »

Quote from: LarBrd33 on June 24, 2015, 01:54:47 AM

Ok all that said... how convinced are you that the players available at #16 are going to be anything more than "role players"? I want us to trade up as much as you do. I want us to trade out, actually... I'm not high on this draft at all. I've been vocal that I see a guy like WCS (who might go as high as 3rd) as a Bismack Biyombo doppleganger. Are you telling me that you are more confident in whatever scrap heap prospects are available #16 over Stauskas? At least Stauskas can shoot. Perhaps he can develop into a JJ Reddick type.

I get that we always have the "grass is always greener" mentality. The lure of the unknown is tantalizing. Nurkic fell to #16 last year (partially due to expectations of him staying overseas, but that's kinda off topic)... So you see something like that and you gotta figure, "ooOo... maybe we can get a star by standing pat!!"... That's super unlikely. Just like my Anthony Bennett suggestion, my preference is to do something more lofty and exciting like trade out for a star... but in a bubble, would you rather have #16 or Bennett? Would you rather have #16 or Stauskas? On both, I'd take the undervalued higher ceiling prospect over gambling on whatever we're getting at 16.

This is not without concerns, though. Ainge has only done this once before, if I remember correctly. Ainge didn't like the 2006 draft so he traded the #7 pick (Randy Foye) for Sebastian Telfair. The gamble for Telfair didn't pay off (though we did get the Theo Ratliff contract in that same deal... which paid off a couple years later for us, but that's not really relevant).... but it's not like Foye lit the world on fire either.

I respect what you're saying, but honestly I don't personally think that Stauskas is going to amount to anything (not even a starting calibre player) in this league, ever.

So based on that, even if (worst case scenario) we cannot trade up, I would rather take a chance on a draft pick and hope we get lucky rather than trade that pick for a guy who already is (and IMO always will be) nothing.

Regarding WCS, i feel there's a big difference between he and Biyombo because:

1) He showed SOME flashes of offensive ability (12 points per 36, 57% FG, 0.83 AST/TO) wheras Biyombo showed pretty much none (9 points per 36, 54% FG, 0.37 AST/TO). While it's not likely he'd ever be a good offensive player, there is at least some hope he could one day be a double-double guy

2) He's a 7-footer with elite athleticism, and that's a major rarity in the league. A 6'9" guy with elite athleticism (like Biyombo) is far more common. Also yes, I know that Biyombo has a rediculous wingspan and the same standing reach as WCS...but I think think raw height plays a part because it's easier to see over the defense (etc)

3) WCS averaged much higher steal numbers (1.67 Steals Per 36) than Biyumbo (0.56 Steals Per 36). Past studies have indicated that players with high steal numbers tend to transition well in the NBA - something about steal numbers reflecting quick hands and good defensive anticipation.

Personally, I do feel like WCS is going to be a special player. Maybe not a superstar or even an All-Star, but I feel he is going to be (at least) a Tyson Chandler type defensive anchor.

Oh, and I wouldn't trade #16 for Bennett either lol

Author Topic: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas? (Read 9939 times)

Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

LarBrd33

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

LarBrd33

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

tarheelsxxiii

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

Monkhouse

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

crimson_stallion

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

LarBrd33

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

LarBrd33

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

jpotter33

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

Monkhouse

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

Rida

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

tarheelsxxiii

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

LarBrd33

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

trickybilly

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

tarheelsxxiii

Re: Would you trade #16 for Nik Stauskas?

crimson_stallion

Hello! Guest

Latest Discussions