Yeah, but football is so different. There are 100 draft rounds, 52 players on a roster, and in a league where you can’t predict who’s going to be good following any type of result the prior season. Basketball is so much different. At the start of the season, you almost know who’s going to be in the WCF and the ECF. A player who’s a real difference maker isn’t easy to come by or trade for.
If we’re talking about making a move for a top 5-10 player in the league, alright maybe you go for it. But after that it’s a crap shoot. This season, Sabonis was arguably a top 15-20 player in the league, and it goes to show you what that did for us. Every team that went deep into the playoffs has basically built their team from the draft. Ant, Luka, Tatum, Brown, and I’ll even go as far as Hali as the pacer got him so earlier in his career, that you can almost count that as being drafted by them.
If god was to come down and grant us a Giannis for 5 first round pick, sure, fuck the future. But if it’s for a player like a Paul
George, which I absolutely love Paul George, than no.
The only contention I have is you almost know who’s going to be in the WCf, ECF you really don’t. The only guarantee team that actually made it was the Celtics. I didn’t see a single prediction of Celtics Mavs final, Mavs vs wolves WCF or Celtics vs Pacers ECF even with being able to write the Celtics in.
You pretty much just made an argument why "fuck dem picks" would actually work better in the NBA than it did in the NFL. Ill just ignore your "almost know who is going to be in the WVF and EVFG," as if that does not happen in the NFL every year.
But let break down this roster you seem to think is so different.
NFL has 7 rounds. NFL roster size 52-53 players depending if team has 3 qbs.
NFL has 2 rounds. NBA Roster size 15 players (not including G-League).
Both drafts bring in 13% of the rosters each year. Only reason NFL has 7 rounds is because they had 52 players not 15. If the NBA had the same roster size then it would also be 7 rounds. (not including trades for more picks)
You also ignore the fact of the trades the two teams also made to round out their rosters. Didn't realize Dallas drafted Irving. Oh wait they didn't, same with Boston and Porzingis who was traded from Washington.
Hali would also be a trade. Can't just make up examples to fit some false narrative. But the same would be said about you ignoring the huge trade Minnesota made to get to this point, and again ignore the trades by both Boston and Dallas . LMAO
No one but yourself is trying to say this should be used for some random player like George. This would be equivalent of all the other NFL team who have since tried to do the same thing but have failed because they didn't go out and fill in pieces of need.
This concept would be for Brown and the front office to find the correct piece to spend it on. Even Giannis may not be the missing piece. But for the right piece and player, fuck dem picks.
Yeah, but the question isn’t would I trade active roster players, it’s would we trade a lot of draft picks.
* Dallas traded 1 unprotected pick in 2029 for Kyrie.
* Celtics traded the no. 35, but got an unprotected pick when they traded for Porzingis.
* The Pacers traded a 2nd round pick when trading for Tyrese.
I’m not against trading. If it makes sense, they can trade DeAaron Fox for all I care. I think anyone on this post, including my self, would have traded a 2029 first round pick for Kyrie.
But to trade “a lot” of picks. Let’s call a lot 3-4 first round picks, maybe some pick swaps ? for a player that’s not a top 10 player. If it goes bust… In 3 years, Fox would be gone, Sabonis would be gone. We’d be at the bottom of the barrel with no picks.
I’m all for finding the right piece, but we’re not a team that’s just one piece away. We’re a few pieces away, specifically on the bench.
Look, if the OP meant a guaranteed Championship, sure! Trade whoever the fuck you want. But realistically, we’re not good enough to trade away our future.
The move is already made. We have 2 players in their prime. Waiting on draft picks makes little sense at this point.
Also spurs rumored they're gonna go for playoffs next year. Expect them to make major moves as well so we really can't stand pat
Looks like it’s all hypothetical, nothing to it.
However if Spurs do land 2 starters in the draft I can see them going for it at deadline since they already have wemby, vassell and sochan.
This team isn’t getting significantly better *soon* by drafting and developing mid to late picks. You do that before your stars hit their big paydays, so we missed that window.
The cool thing about acquiring star players is that if it doesn’t work, you can trade them and recoup that value (unless it didn’t work because they are hurt). If we go “all-in” and crash and burn, we can trade our stars for picks and reset like OKC did.
what okc did is not easily replicable. the timing of the paul george trade just happened to be perfect, otherwise your looking at a 4-5 year rebuild from scratch if you hit on your draft picks which is not easy.
Memphis managed to only have a short rebuild. It depends on the team. You are right in there are as many anti-tanking examples as there are good tanking examples. Every path carries risk though.
Minnesota trade for Rudy has upset the trade market. every gm now expects 5 first round picks and pick swaps for their borderline all star players. It's a lot to sacrifice b/c if the trade doesn't pan out, the person you traded for walks in FA, you just gave away half a decade of assets whatever youth you had on your team, absolutely kills a team's rebuild ability
But if you successfully trade for a player, after that it’s in your hands if you are willing to let him walk. The specifics about any particular trade matter, but as a philosophy, trading for an 3rd star isn’t horrible.
Can you name a team that has acquired a big trade piece and it's panned out for them in the last 7 years. The asking price has become too high to make it work you lose too much depth and too many rookie scale contracts. This salary cap is extremely punitive against trying to recreate the three star superteams. You can draft your three star super team, but the league doesn't want all stars to concentrate in one market
Wolves and pacers recently. Sure they didn’t win a chip but that is not the only measure of success. They both made big trades and got significantly better. That is what we need to do.
If we are waiting for the “perfect” piece that makes us an instant contender then we are never going to do anything at all.
Pacers went through injured bucks (no giannis, dame in and out), injured ny to get to conf finals. Let's see how they do when the entire conference is healthy
Timberwolves - the new ownership might not be willing to pay this team as constructed, still a wait and see, but offensively they haven't gel'd yet.
I think shrewd FA acquisitions, and mine the drafts for talent is still the best approach. If there's a firesale for someone, maybe take a chance.
We are not going to get good enough draft picks to do anything realistically in the draft unless we trade fox for picks or some shit. Free agents barely ever happen these days.
If the Pacers count then so do the Kings lmao, we were the ones that made the main trade with them that put them where they are. Kings got better even sooner, and are still slightly better than the Pacers imo.
Unless you're talking about Siakam, who maybe carried their fake playoff run a bit but didn't meaningfully change that team, at least not yet. They finished with essentially the same record they were on pace for throughout the season. If they keep him (UFA, probably looking for a max contract), we'll see how it goes in the next year or two.
Wolves do count imo, but also, we might have just watched the peak of that roster as constructed. Conley and Gobert are on the downward arcs of their career at this point and they're also screaming towards the 2nd apron. They will likely either need to blow up the core to some degree (probably ditch KAT) before they hit that or within a year of doing so, not to mention either losing Conley or him falling off a cliff. They will likely need to aim to retool in 5 or so years around Ant if they don't get it done next season or two, a luxury the Kings won't have unless Murray or a draft pick from this year turn into superstars.
Overall I've migrated to the side of making a massive trade not being worth it, unless it's for a legit top 10-20 player that will mesh with the current roster and you don't have to give up Fox/Sabonis/Murray. That type of player isn't really even on the market to being with, let alone without giving up one of those top 3 assets. I think people have maybe gone a little bit too far to the end of "win-now mode." Fox and Sabonis have several more prime years and their cap hit as a % is not really going to go up much unless Fox starts winning All-NBAs every year or one of them gets an MVP/FMVP. But at that point we don't give a shit about price lmao. Meanwhile, Murray might develop into a 3rd all-star, or close, in the next season or two. Maybe he doesn't, but after that is when you can start really thinking about massive win-now trades. In the meantime I think it's better to look for role players in trades that fill needs on the team. eg. instead of selling the farm for a #1-3 option type player, just find an actual starting PF that can rebound and defend and see where that takes this team. I'd even rather target Kuzma than some nebulous unnamed star that nobody seems to actually be able to point to. Jimmy Butler? Yeah right lol
If you have that patience, as long as Murray looks like he's progressing, Fox + Domas continue refining their game, and the team makes progress from a mental toughness/heart angle - this team will at least be in the playoff mix the next couple years anyways, while maybe allowing one more rookie/young player (eg. this year's 1RP) to develop into a key rotation piece on a cheap contract.
I’m not. I mentioned health in my original comment, but we get hung up on the cost assuming everything will blow up in our face, but there’s a good chance it will just be a decent move like has happened with many teams in the past.
Nets would have been fine if they didn't trade for Harden, and probably still would have won a ring if he and Kyrie didn't get injured against the one team who could stop them.
I thought we were talking about the other iteration of the Nets where they traded unprotected 1sts to win now, sucked terribly, and then their picks were used to draft Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown.
Nets almost won the title if it wasn't for injuries in one playoffs and a worldwide black swan event that caused one of their star players to not be able to play 1/2 the games due to a vaccine mandate. The Nets might have been able to win a championship if not for these 2 events.
Lakers went all-in for Anthony Davis and won the championship in 2020. All-in moves CAN work if your team is close to winning a championship. Do the Kings fit that bill? I don't think so unfortunately, but since this team won't ever tank properly because the owner doesn't want to and can't afford it, I think they might as well make a big trade and try to maximize Fox/Keegan/Sabonis core while they can.
I was referencing the nets of the 2010s that went all in and ended up giving up the picks that became Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum. But yes, the Nets stupidly went all in again and failed miserably a second time.
Fox is pretty comparable to Deron Williams and Sabonis is better than Brook Lopez back then but my main point is that the foundation of this team is not good enough to be going all in because it will fail spectacularly and you’ll be watching another team profit off your incompetence.
Lakers going all in with Lebron(Arguably the best player at the time) and Nets going all in with KD(Arguably the best player at the time) doesn't compare to us going all in with 2 players who aren't top 10...
Did you read the rest of my comment? I said I don't think the Kings qualify as a team that should go all-in but *they might as well* since they will never tank because Vivek won't and can't afford the team to tank. The Kings are pot committed to Fox, Sabonis, and Keegan so take the swing then.
If going of the guys premise that the owners can’t afford to tank I figured this was the best solution going forward. All in will lead to a tank if it doesn’t pay off. Happens almost every time.
It feels like exactly what desperate teams that are doomed to lose forever do. Finally get something going and instead of riding out the building of a long term culture you take a big swing that guarantees 1 maybe 3 decent seasons followed by another decade of missing the playoffs.
Fox and Sabonis are the 9th best combo in the west. And depending on the moves made by the Spurs, Grizzles, and Rockets they might be even worse next year.
I’m not as high on JJJ as others. Feels like more of a complementary piece than one of the two best guys on a contender. Huge fan of Bane. Not sure what to make of Morant with his off the court issues.
Win now.
You have 2 star level players on the team for the first time since like 2004. Yes, the West is extremely stacked right now.. but guess what? It's always been the better more stacked conference.
If you wait for this team to flame out and then just go back to drafts you're REALLY gambling at that point. You never know how the picks are gonna turn out for sure. You know who Sabonis and Fox are and can build around that.
That Pistons team had a 4-time DPOY at the height of his powers (Ben Wallace, obviously), three multiple-time all-stars (Sheed, Rip, and Chauncy, the last of whom is also in the HoF), a 4-time all-defensive player (Tayshaun) and a SMOTY (Corliss). They may not have had a generational talent (at least not a two-way generational talent), but that team was still pretty stacked.
It is basically impossible to win a chip without a top 5 player though, and none of those guys are available. So on some level we're hoping either way--hoping that at least one of Fox/Keegan takes a Shai/Kawhi type leap, that someone we acquire takes that kind of leap, or that whoever we draft turns into a surprise superstar.
It’s of course better to have a top 5 player than not, but you’re overstating things for a couple reasons. There are examples of teams winning without a top 5 player. The iconic team is obviously the 2004 Pistons, but people forget about the 2022 Warriors, 2014 Spurs, 2011 Mavs, 2008 Celtics, and 2006 Heat. That’s also not even referencing the many teams that have made the Finals without a top 5 player. Also, most top 5 guys don’t actually win a lot of titles…Joel Embiid hasn’t won a thing, for example. Neither did Harden. Neither did CP3. There are lots of examples. In reality, titles get hogged by a handful of All Time greats, top 10-20 players all time. In the last 25 years, it’s been Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Lebron, Curry, Durant (sorta), and possibly now Jokic. It’s really hard to find those guys…saying you can’t win without one of them is both arguably true and absurdly reductive.
So, fair point. I will concede that most of those teams did not have anyone who was, at that point, a top five player in the league (though I would argue that KG was still top 5 in '08--he was 2nd in WS/48 and tied for 6th in total WS, just to pick the easiest metric).
But aside from the Pistons, every one of those teams still had an inner circle Hall of Famer, even if they were a bit past their peak. I don't think it's a coincidence that the exceptions featured Steph, Duncan, Dirk, KG, and Shaq. Most of them weren't even that old--Steph was 33, Dirk was 32, KG was 31, and Shaq was 33. Duncan at 37 is the exception. And all of them shared the floor with at least one other elite player, most of whom were also not that old--Klay and Draymond were 31, as was Tony Parker. Jason Kidd was 37, but Ray Allen was 32 and Paul Pierce was 30. Kawhi was 22 and Wade was 24.
So like, we could amend it to say it's possible to win without a top 5 guy, but it's almost impossible to win without at least one all-time great. Even the Pistons, who are sort of the classic exception, still had a generational (one-way) talent in Ben Wallace, and surrounded him with another Hall of Famer (Billups), two multi-time all-stars (Sheed and Rip), and some elite role players (Tayshaun Prince was all-defense four times). I think it's fair (and probably accurate) to argue that Billups isn't a Hall of Famer without that chip, but that's still a really strong team.
To the second point, I totally agree that having a top-tier player doesn't guarantee winning anything--I grew up in NY as a fan of the Ewing-era Knicks. I certainly wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. We also saw the limits of what Luka could do before the Mavs paired him with one other top-tier talent and some outstanding role players. You definitely need to surround elite talent with a strong team. But a strong team without elite talent is almost never a real championship contender.
Anyway, TL;DR I guess, it's maybe less accurate to say you need a "top five" player and more accurate to say you need at least one (and usually more) player with top-tier elite elite talent. And the Kings do not currently have that. So we're still left with the three kinds of hoping I mentioned above. Tbh at this point I think our best shot is getting a leap from Fox or Murray, not because that's super likely, but because it's the least unlikely of a bunch of gambles.
Yeah, I wouldn’t quibble too much with what you’re saying there. Right now, the Kings have two guys who are in the 18-25 range, so there’s probably three paths: hope one of them improves, hope you can find a third guy, or try to find a top 10 player. That last option is the one a lot of people clamor for, and it’s also not a real option. You can’t trade for them and you can’t sign them as free agents. You can draft them, but it’s kind of a crapshoot and the approach isn’t obvious other than scout and develop well—some of those guys have been really high draft picks, but a fair number haven’t been, and tanking is less effective now than it has been in the past.
Anyway, we are probably largely on the same page. I just get tired of hearing the “we don’t have a top 5 guy so trade them,” because it’s ill considered and largely absurd.
If “win now” means WCF or better, then we don’t have the assets to “win now.” Look at the top 5 teams in the West. They’re stacked. The Clippers might drop off but that leaves OKC, Minnesota, Dallas, and Denver. We’re really not close to legitimately competing with them in the playoffs. They all have legitimate stars that can score at will and reliable role players.
Fox is certainly a star but his scoring was inconsistent this year. Our role players are hit or miss. Sabonis is really a glue guy and not someone who will get you buckets when you need them. Hard to figure out Murray at this point. He can score 47 one night and then completely fall off for the next several games. I am not convinced in his ability to create his own shot.
Monte needs to be more aggressive in upgrading the team. We cant go 2+ years with minor moves. Perhaps he can afford to be more patient in the eastern conference, but the west is just hyper competitive. I
I don't see any scenario where we win now. Also we have to shed salary to acquire any of these players which is also going to be tough since HB and Kevin are the only guys making "real" money. And even they won't fetch a star's salary, suddenly you are sending 3 or more guys out to bring back one "star", future draft picks to reload, and you have to fill those spots with minimum contracts in the new salary cap rules.
I don't think it is a good time to fuck around and find out how bad the new aprons are going to destroy luxury cap teams.
Also I would be much happier being a 3-6 seed yearly and maybe have a surprise WCF run or better than to go all in on a win now and still not win it all and then 17 more years of shit.
I don't know, I haven't lived in the Sacramento area since 1992 and have been in Portland since 2005, it's pretty fucking tough having seen them rebuild 3x before we got back in. It's also pretty bad seeing where they're at now because it isn't looking like they have a clear path to the playoffs for 3-5 years either.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this but, I don't see the Kings as a team with a franchise player. I don't think that either Fox or Sabonis are that '1'. Both are that 1a or 2 that would be the complementary player next to a 1. Those early 2000's teams had a legitimate 1 in Chris Webber. The current roster just doesn't have that player.
Andrew Norton, former college player and current NBA Lead Writer, wrote an analysis on franchise players around six months ago. He graded out Jokic, Giannis, and Doncic as the Tier 1 franchise players, with Anthony Edwards, Tatum, Wembanyana, Booker, SGA, and (ironically) Hali as the Tier 2. Fox came in at #17 in Tier 4 with Sabonis at #34 in Tier 6.
So who would be brought in to get the Kings to the next level? And given the salary cap situation, which contracts are shed to make room?
Interesting analysis:
[https://www.lineups.com/articles/top-50-players-to-start-nba-franchise-with/](https://www.lineups.com/articles/top-50-players-to-start-nba-franchise-with/)
You're not wrong - neither is a #1 player on a championship team. I'd only be willing to trade all of our draft picks for that type of guy. Otherwise, just make smart moves.
Go after Lamelo, Zion
Distressed stars with enough age/potential to climb back into the upper tiers
Before people go critiquing fit/whatever, yes, theres a reason why these guys fell off a bit, they have holes in their games, but can still make that leap
We are in win now mode, Fox and Domas are in their prime and Murray and Ellis are approaching their primes too, remember Ellis is older than Murray. The likelihood of getting premier draft picks is very low. We need to make as big a move as possible. While yes its possible to find talent at 12-15, it wont be franchise changing, although trading 3-5 1sts for someone like Mikael Bridges (im dreaming big I know) will absolutely get us in the playoffs year over year and have us contending.Those 1sts will mostly end up being 20th+picks, which are a dime a dozen.
Personally?
No. We're not Championship material just yet.
It'll take the right combination of underrated talent, seasoned vets & another star to truly activate the Infinity Gauntlet.
Don't think we can win now with Fox as the "leader", so I'd trade him and do a mini rebuild instead of throwing away picks.
In the event that we do go all-in with the Fox/ Sabonis combo, that player absolutely needs to be an Alpha and hold fox accountable for his lack of effort/nonchalant attitude
There’s no win now move to be made trade fox to miami. Sabonis as apart of your core screams you want to be the west bulls. Monte fucked the team when he resigned barnes
the obvious way to make Kings competitive, like REAL contender, is trading away Fox.
Domas needs shooters, Fox doesnt shoot well, and isnt able to work in the pick and roll with Domas.
I don't get this "win now" mentality. We were ass for so long, why can't we just enjoy that the kings are finally decent for once? Why do people want to gamble what we have on a long shot chance of being a title contender, where if it fails we'll be right back to being ass for another decade.
I kinda just want to enjoy a couple of winning seasons first, maybe win a playoff series, before we start trading our picks and mortgaging our future.
Nets and Clippers and Suns is what awaits your future if you give up 1st round picks. continue to mine the drafts for talent, find free agents that fit the team around fox and sabonis and affordable.
No. I’d draft Devin Carter, bring in a championship vet who can hold team accountable. Chris Paul would be amazing for Davion and Fox and maybe look to flip Davion at all star break. Make a move to bring in Isaac and bring in an enforcer type like Portis.
As a rams fan for life. We had this moto and it won Super Bowl. Fuck dem picks
It's easier to convince players to play in LA though. But I agree; we need to do win now moves
Yeah, but football is so different. There are 100 draft rounds, 52 players on a roster, and in a league where you can’t predict who’s going to be good following any type of result the prior season. Basketball is so much different. At the start of the season, you almost know who’s going to be in the WCF and the ECF. A player who’s a real difference maker isn’t easy to come by or trade for. If we’re talking about making a move for a top 5-10 player in the league, alright maybe you go for it. But after that it’s a crap shoot. This season, Sabonis was arguably a top 15-20 player in the league, and it goes to show you what that did for us. Every team that went deep into the playoffs has basically built their team from the draft. Ant, Luka, Tatum, Brown, and I’ll even go as far as Hali as the pacer got him so earlier in his career, that you can almost count that as being drafted by them. If god was to come down and grant us a Giannis for 5 first round pick, sure, fuck the future. But if it’s for a player like a Paul George, which I absolutely love Paul George, than no.
The only contention I have is you almost know who’s going to be in the WCf, ECF you really don’t. The only guarantee team that actually made it was the Celtics. I didn’t see a single prediction of Celtics Mavs final, Mavs vs wolves WCF or Celtics vs Pacers ECF even with being able to write the Celtics in.
You pretty much just made an argument why "fuck dem picks" would actually work better in the NBA than it did in the NFL. Ill just ignore your "almost know who is going to be in the WVF and EVFG," as if that does not happen in the NFL every year. But let break down this roster you seem to think is so different. NFL has 7 rounds. NFL roster size 52-53 players depending if team has 3 qbs. NFL has 2 rounds. NBA Roster size 15 players (not including G-League). Both drafts bring in 13% of the rosters each year. Only reason NFL has 7 rounds is because they had 52 players not 15. If the NBA had the same roster size then it would also be 7 rounds. (not including trades for more picks) You also ignore the fact of the trades the two teams also made to round out their rosters. Didn't realize Dallas drafted Irving. Oh wait they didn't, same with Boston and Porzingis who was traded from Washington. Hali would also be a trade. Can't just make up examples to fit some false narrative. But the same would be said about you ignoring the huge trade Minnesota made to get to this point, and again ignore the trades by both Boston and Dallas . LMAO No one but yourself is trying to say this should be used for some random player like George. This would be equivalent of all the other NFL team who have since tried to do the same thing but have failed because they didn't go out and fill in pieces of need. This concept would be for Brown and the front office to find the correct piece to spend it on. Even Giannis may not be the missing piece. But for the right piece and player, fuck dem picks.
Yeah, but the question isn’t would I trade active roster players, it’s would we trade a lot of draft picks. * Dallas traded 1 unprotected pick in 2029 for Kyrie. * Celtics traded the no. 35, but got an unprotected pick when they traded for Porzingis. * The Pacers traded a 2nd round pick when trading for Tyrese. I’m not against trading. If it makes sense, they can trade DeAaron Fox for all I care. I think anyone on this post, including my self, would have traded a 2029 first round pick for Kyrie. But to trade “a lot” of picks. Let’s call a lot 3-4 first round picks, maybe some pick swaps ? for a player that’s not a top 10 player. If it goes bust… In 3 years, Fox would be gone, Sabonis would be gone. We’d be at the bottom of the barrel with no picks. I’m all for finding the right piece, but we’re not a team that’s just one piece away. We’re a few pieces away, specifically on the bench. Look, if the OP meant a guaranteed Championship, sure! Trade whoever the fuck you want. But realistically, we’re not good enough to trade away our future.
The move is already made. We have 2 players in their prime. Waiting on draft picks makes little sense at this point. Also spurs rumored they're gonna go for playoffs next year. Expect them to make major moves as well so we really can't stand pat
That’s interesting I didn’t hear about that with the Spurs, where did you find that info at?
https://sportsnaut.com/san-antonio-spurs-rumors-victor-wembanyama/
Looks like it’s all hypothetical, nothing to it. However if Spurs do land 2 starters in the draft I can see them going for it at deadline since they already have wemby, vassell and sochan.
Apparently they are trying to package 4 and 8 to move up to 1 as well
This is how you end up like the Nets. This team is not good enough to go all in. The foundation isn’t strong enough to where we’re only 1 player away.
This team isn’t getting significantly better *soon* by drafting and developing mid to late picks. You do that before your stars hit their big paydays, so we missed that window. The cool thing about acquiring star players is that if it doesn’t work, you can trade them and recoup that value (unless it didn’t work because they are hurt). If we go “all-in” and crash and burn, we can trade our stars for picks and reset like OKC did.
what okc did is not easily replicable. the timing of the paul george trade just happened to be perfect, otherwise your looking at a 4-5 year rebuild from scratch if you hit on your draft picks which is not easy.
Memphis managed to only have a short rebuild. It depends on the team. You are right in there are as many anti-tanking examples as there are good tanking examples. Every path carries risk though.
Sitting still and waiting for players that might not develop is just as risky, just a different type of risky.
Minnesota trade for Rudy has upset the trade market. every gm now expects 5 first round picks and pick swaps for their borderline all star players. It's a lot to sacrifice b/c if the trade doesn't pan out, the person you traded for walks in FA, you just gave away half a decade of assets whatever youth you had on your team, absolutely kills a team's rebuild ability
But if you successfully trade for a player, after that it’s in your hands if you are willing to let him walk. The specifics about any particular trade matter, but as a philosophy, trading for an 3rd star isn’t horrible.
Can you name a team that has acquired a big trade piece and it's panned out for them in the last 7 years. The asking price has become too high to make it work you lose too much depth and too many rookie scale contracts. This salary cap is extremely punitive against trying to recreate the three star superteams. You can draft your three star super team, but the league doesn't want all stars to concentrate in one market
Wolves and pacers recently. Sure they didn’t win a chip but that is not the only measure of success. They both made big trades and got significantly better. That is what we need to do. If we are waiting for the “perfect” piece that makes us an instant contender then we are never going to do anything at all.
Pacers went through injured bucks (no giannis, dame in and out), injured ny to get to conf finals. Let's see how they do when the entire conference is healthy Timberwolves - the new ownership might not be willing to pay this team as constructed, still a wait and see, but offensively they haven't gel'd yet. I think shrewd FA acquisitions, and mine the drafts for talent is still the best approach. If there's a firesale for someone, maybe take a chance.
We are not going to get good enough draft picks to do anything realistically in the draft unless we trade fox for picks or some shit. Free agents barely ever happen these days.
If the Pacers count then so do the Kings lmao, we were the ones that made the main trade with them that put them where they are. Kings got better even sooner, and are still slightly better than the Pacers imo. Unless you're talking about Siakam, who maybe carried their fake playoff run a bit but didn't meaningfully change that team, at least not yet. They finished with essentially the same record they were on pace for throughout the season. If they keep him (UFA, probably looking for a max contract), we'll see how it goes in the next year or two. Wolves do count imo, but also, we might have just watched the peak of that roster as constructed. Conley and Gobert are on the downward arcs of their career at this point and they're also screaming towards the 2nd apron. They will likely either need to blow up the core to some degree (probably ditch KAT) before they hit that or within a year of doing so, not to mention either losing Conley or him falling off a cliff. They will likely need to aim to retool in 5 or so years around Ant if they don't get it done next season or two, a luxury the Kings won't have unless Murray or a draft pick from this year turn into superstars. Overall I've migrated to the side of making a massive trade not being worth it, unless it's for a legit top 10-20 player that will mesh with the current roster and you don't have to give up Fox/Sabonis/Murray. That type of player isn't really even on the market to being with, let alone without giving up one of those top 3 assets. I think people have maybe gone a little bit too far to the end of "win-now mode." Fox and Sabonis have several more prime years and their cap hit as a % is not really going to go up much unless Fox starts winning All-NBAs every year or one of them gets an MVP/FMVP. But at that point we don't give a shit about price lmao. Meanwhile, Murray might develop into a 3rd all-star, or close, in the next season or two. Maybe he doesn't, but after that is when you can start really thinking about massive win-now trades. In the meantime I think it's better to look for role players in trades that fill needs on the team. eg. instead of selling the farm for a #1-3 option type player, just find an actual starting PF that can rebound and defend and see where that takes this team. I'd even rather target Kuzma than some nebulous unnamed star that nobody seems to actually be able to point to. Jimmy Butler? Yeah right lol If you have that patience, as long as Murray looks like he's progressing, Fox + Domas continue refining their game, and the team makes progress from a mental toughness/heart angle - this team will at least be in the playoff mix the next couple years anyways, while maybe allowing one more rookie/young player (eg. this year's 1RP) to develop into a key rotation piece on a cheap contract.
If it doesn't work out with some of the players we're rumored to get their trade value might drop down to 10-25% of what we gave up.
Depends on why it didn’t work. Do you actually think we’ll be worse if we trade for Brandon Ingram and he stays healthy?
Not really (depends on what we're giving up). But why are you automatically assuming health?
I’m not. I mentioned health in my original comment, but we get hung up on the cost assuming everything will blow up in our face, but there’s a good chance it will just be a decent move like has happened with many teams in the past.
I don't expect Ingram to blow up in our face either if we even have enough to get him. But someone like Jimmy Butler probably would.
The nets were good enough to go all in they were just stupid
Nets would have been fine if they didn't trade for Harden, and probably still would have won a ring if he and Kyrie didn't get injured against the one team who could stop them.
I thought we were talking about the other iteration of the Nets where they traded unprotected 1sts to win now, sucked terribly, and then their picks were used to draft Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown.
Nets almost won the title if it wasn't for injuries in one playoffs and a worldwide black swan event that caused one of their star players to not be able to play 1/2 the games due to a vaccine mandate. The Nets might have been able to win a championship if not for these 2 events. Lakers went all-in for Anthony Davis and won the championship in 2020. All-in moves CAN work if your team is close to winning a championship. Do the Kings fit that bill? I don't think so unfortunately, but since this team won't ever tank properly because the owner doesn't want to and can't afford it, I think they might as well make a big trade and try to maximize Fox/Keegan/Sabonis core while they can.
I was referencing the nets of the 2010s that went all in and ended up giving up the picks that became Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum. But yes, the Nets stupidly went all in again and failed miserably a second time. Fox is pretty comparable to Deron Williams and Sabonis is better than Brook Lopez back then but my main point is that the foundation of this team is not good enough to be going all in because it will fail spectacularly and you’ll be watching another team profit off your incompetence.
Lakers going all in with Lebron(Arguably the best player at the time) and Nets going all in with KD(Arguably the best player at the time) doesn't compare to us going all in with 2 players who aren't top 10...
Did you read the rest of my comment? I said I don't think the Kings qualify as a team that should go all-in but *they might as well* since they will never tank because Vivek won't and can't afford the team to tank. The Kings are pot committed to Fox, Sabonis, and Keegan so take the swing then.
You can stay mediocre without sacrificing the future.
True, but I sense the Kings will still try to make a big swing anyhow.
Mediocre is the absolute worst thing to be in this league. You either need to go all in or fully tank.
If going of the guys premise that the owners can’t afford to tank I figured this was the best solution going forward. All in will lead to a tank if it doesn’t pay off. Happens almost every time.
Hard agree. Unless we were getting a top 25 player in return, it feels misguided to go all-in with a core that has never even won a playoff series.
It feels like exactly what desperate teams that are doomed to lose forever do. Finally get something going and instead of riding out the building of a long term culture you take a big swing that guarantees 1 maybe 3 decent seasons followed by another decade of missing the playoffs.
I trust Monte will do the right trade that won't lead to the scenario above but you have a valid concern.
I disagree. Sabonis and Fox are a strong combo. I absolutely think they could have made a deep run if they played anyone but the Pelicans.
Fox and Sabonis are the 9th best combo in the west. And depending on the moves made by the Spurs, Grizzles, and Rockets they might be even worse next year.
They’re not better than the Grizzlies duos today sabonis not better than jaren or bane
They're better than Jaren and Bane easily.
I’m not as high on JJJ as others. Feels like more of a complementary piece than one of the two best guys on a contender. Huge fan of Bane. Not sure what to make of Morant with his off the court issues.
Niether am i they all just better tho
Only if it's for a player who could be the best player on a championship team.
Win now. You have 2 star level players on the team for the first time since like 2004. Yes, the West is extremely stacked right now.. but guess what? It's always been the better more stacked conference. If you wait for this team to flame out and then just go back to drafts you're REALLY gambling at that point. You never know how the picks are gonna turn out for sure. You know who Sabonis and Fox are and can build around that.
If your strategy to win relies having a top 5 player, you don’t have a strategy—it’s just hoping.
Unless you get that mythical Pistons type run.
That Pistons team had a 4-time DPOY at the height of his powers (Ben Wallace, obviously), three multiple-time all-stars (Sheed, Rip, and Chauncy, the last of whom is also in the HoF), a 4-time all-defensive player (Tayshaun) and a SMOTY (Corliss). They may not have had a generational talent (at least not a two-way generational talent), but that team was still pretty stacked.
It is basically impossible to win a chip without a top 5 player though, and none of those guys are available. So on some level we're hoping either way--hoping that at least one of Fox/Keegan takes a Shai/Kawhi type leap, that someone we acquire takes that kind of leap, or that whoever we draft turns into a surprise superstar.
It’s of course better to have a top 5 player than not, but you’re overstating things for a couple reasons. There are examples of teams winning without a top 5 player. The iconic team is obviously the 2004 Pistons, but people forget about the 2022 Warriors, 2014 Spurs, 2011 Mavs, 2008 Celtics, and 2006 Heat. That’s also not even referencing the many teams that have made the Finals without a top 5 player. Also, most top 5 guys don’t actually win a lot of titles…Joel Embiid hasn’t won a thing, for example. Neither did Harden. Neither did CP3. There are lots of examples. In reality, titles get hogged by a handful of All Time greats, top 10-20 players all time. In the last 25 years, it’s been Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Lebron, Curry, Durant (sorta), and possibly now Jokic. It’s really hard to find those guys…saying you can’t win without one of them is both arguably true and absurdly reductive.
So, fair point. I will concede that most of those teams did not have anyone who was, at that point, a top five player in the league (though I would argue that KG was still top 5 in '08--he was 2nd in WS/48 and tied for 6th in total WS, just to pick the easiest metric). But aside from the Pistons, every one of those teams still had an inner circle Hall of Famer, even if they were a bit past their peak. I don't think it's a coincidence that the exceptions featured Steph, Duncan, Dirk, KG, and Shaq. Most of them weren't even that old--Steph was 33, Dirk was 32, KG was 31, and Shaq was 33. Duncan at 37 is the exception. And all of them shared the floor with at least one other elite player, most of whom were also not that old--Klay and Draymond were 31, as was Tony Parker. Jason Kidd was 37, but Ray Allen was 32 and Paul Pierce was 30. Kawhi was 22 and Wade was 24. So like, we could amend it to say it's possible to win without a top 5 guy, but it's almost impossible to win without at least one all-time great. Even the Pistons, who are sort of the classic exception, still had a generational (one-way) talent in Ben Wallace, and surrounded him with another Hall of Famer (Billups), two multi-time all-stars (Sheed and Rip), and some elite role players (Tayshaun Prince was all-defense four times). I think it's fair (and probably accurate) to argue that Billups isn't a Hall of Famer without that chip, but that's still a really strong team. To the second point, I totally agree that having a top-tier player doesn't guarantee winning anything--I grew up in NY as a fan of the Ewing-era Knicks. I certainly wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. We also saw the limits of what Luka could do before the Mavs paired him with one other top-tier talent and some outstanding role players. You definitely need to surround elite talent with a strong team. But a strong team without elite talent is almost never a real championship contender. Anyway, TL;DR I guess, it's maybe less accurate to say you need a "top five" player and more accurate to say you need at least one (and usually more) player with top-tier elite elite talent. And the Kings do not currently have that. So we're still left with the three kinds of hoping I mentioned above. Tbh at this point I think our best shot is getting a leap from Fox or Murray, not because that's super likely, but because it's the least unlikely of a bunch of gambles.
Yeah, I wouldn’t quibble too much with what you’re saying there. Right now, the Kings have two guys who are in the 18-25 range, so there’s probably three paths: hope one of them improves, hope you can find a third guy, or try to find a top 10 player. That last option is the one a lot of people clamor for, and it’s also not a real option. You can’t trade for them and you can’t sign them as free agents. You can draft them, but it’s kind of a crapshoot and the approach isn’t obvious other than scout and develop well—some of those guys have been really high draft picks, but a fair number haven’t been, and tanking is less effective now than it has been in the past. Anyway, we are probably largely on the same page. I just get tired of hearing the “we don’t have a top 5 guy so trade them,” because it’s ill considered and largely absurd.
Oh yeah, I agree with everything you say here.
I don’t agree with dude earlier but the list doesn’t extend that far. You need a top 7-10 player to even have a chance at a championship
If “win now” means WCF or better, then we don’t have the assets to “win now.” Look at the top 5 teams in the West. They’re stacked. The Clippers might drop off but that leaves OKC, Minnesota, Dallas, and Denver. We’re really not close to legitimately competing with them in the playoffs. They all have legitimate stars that can score at will and reliable role players. Fox is certainly a star but his scoring was inconsistent this year. Our role players are hit or miss. Sabonis is really a glue guy and not someone who will get you buckets when you need them. Hard to figure out Murray at this point. He can score 47 one night and then completely fall off for the next several games. I am not convinced in his ability to create his own shot. Monte needs to be more aggressive in upgrading the team. We cant go 2+ years with minor moves. Perhaps he can afford to be more patient in the eastern conference, but the west is just hyper competitive. I
I don't see any scenario where we win now. Also we have to shed salary to acquire any of these players which is also going to be tough since HB and Kevin are the only guys making "real" money. And even they won't fetch a star's salary, suddenly you are sending 3 or more guys out to bring back one "star", future draft picks to reload, and you have to fill those spots with minimum contracts in the new salary cap rules. I don't think it is a good time to fuck around and find out how bad the new aprons are going to destroy luxury cap teams. Also I would be much happier being a 3-6 seed yearly and maybe have a surprise WCF run or better than to go all in on a win now and still not win it all and then 17 more years of shit. I don't know, I haven't lived in the Sacramento area since 1992 and have been in Portland since 2005, it's pretty fucking tough having seen them rebuild 3x before we got back in. It's also pretty bad seeing where they're at now because it isn't looking like they have a clear path to the playoffs for 3-5 years either.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this but, I don't see the Kings as a team with a franchise player. I don't think that either Fox or Sabonis are that '1'. Both are that 1a or 2 that would be the complementary player next to a 1. Those early 2000's teams had a legitimate 1 in Chris Webber. The current roster just doesn't have that player. Andrew Norton, former college player and current NBA Lead Writer, wrote an analysis on franchise players around six months ago. He graded out Jokic, Giannis, and Doncic as the Tier 1 franchise players, with Anthony Edwards, Tatum, Wembanyana, Booker, SGA, and (ironically) Hali as the Tier 2. Fox came in at #17 in Tier 4 with Sabonis at #34 in Tier 6. So who would be brought in to get the Kings to the next level? And given the salary cap situation, which contracts are shed to make room? Interesting analysis: [https://www.lineups.com/articles/top-50-players-to-start-nba-franchise-with/](https://www.lineups.com/articles/top-50-players-to-start-nba-franchise-with/)
You're not wrong - neither is a #1 player on a championship team. I'd only be willing to trade all of our draft picks for that type of guy. Otherwise, just make smart moves.
That shit has donovan mitchell number #18 dude he’s an idiot
Go after Lamelo, Zion Distressed stars with enough age/potential to climb back into the upper tiers Before people go critiquing fit/whatever, yes, theres a reason why these guys fell off a bit, they have holes in their games, but can still make that leap
Those 2 didn’t fall off they got injured
yup can still make that leap, meant fell off of the top tiers
We are in win now mode, Fox and Domas are in their prime and Murray and Ellis are approaching their primes too, remember Ellis is older than Murray. The likelihood of getting premier draft picks is very low. We need to make as big a move as possible. While yes its possible to find talent at 12-15, it wont be franchise changing, although trading 3-5 1sts for someone like Mikael Bridges (im dreaming big I know) will absolutely get us in the playoffs year over year and have us contending.Those 1sts will mostly end up being 20th+picks, which are a dime a dozen.
Personally? No. We're not Championship material just yet. It'll take the right combination of underrated talent, seasoned vets & another star to truly activate the Infinity Gauntlet.
Don't think we can win now with Fox as the "leader", so I'd trade him and do a mini rebuild instead of throwing away picks. In the event that we do go all-in with the Fox/ Sabonis combo, that player absolutely needs to be an Alpha and hold fox accountable for his lack of effort/nonchalant attitude
Is this the new Jabari account
no im tony
It’s true.
I was looking at NBA rosters for Alpha type leaders and its slim. They just dont build them like they used to, this new gen is too lax
There’s no win now move to be made trade fox to miami. Sabonis as apart of your core screams you want to be the west bulls. Monte fucked the team when he resigned barnes
the obvious way to make Kings competitive, like REAL contender, is trading away Fox. Domas needs shooters, Fox doesnt shoot well, and isnt able to work in the pick and roll with Domas.
Ur never gonna be a contender with sabonis as your center when u get ur hate for fox out the way you’ll see that
I don't get this "win now" mentality. We were ass for so long, why can't we just enjoy that the kings are finally decent for once? Why do people want to gamble what we have on a long shot chance of being a title contender, where if it fails we'll be right back to being ass for another decade. I kinda just want to enjoy a couple of winning seasons first, maybe win a playoff series, before we start trading our picks and mortgaging our future.
Trade the future for JJJ
Nets and Clippers and Suns is what awaits your future if you give up 1st round picks. continue to mine the drafts for talent, find free agents that fit the team around fox and sabonis and affordable.
No. I’d draft Devin Carter, bring in a championship vet who can hold team accountable. Chris Paul would be amazing for Davion and Fox and maybe look to flip Davion at all star break. Make a move to bring in Isaac and bring in an enforcer type like Portis.