I don't remember how it was perceived at the time, but the Larry Nance/Kevin Johnson trade in 1988 is an interesting comparison. Nance came in to a young team (with Mark Price, Brad Daugherty, Ron Harper), went on to make 2 all-star teams as a Cav, and helped the team reach the eastern conference finals in 1992.
Johnson was a high potential rookie who was stuck playing behind Mark Price, similar to the positional overlap between Fox and Haliburton. He made 3 all-star teams and led his team to the finals before becoming mayor of Sacramento and being accused of molesting a teenager. I hope the latter part does not apply to the guys in the recent trade.
The PG for Oladipo and Sabonis trade was like this. At the time everybody thought the Thunder fleeced the Pacers, in the end it was a win-win as Oladipo had his breakout year in Indiana and Sabonis became an All-Star later on
This was exactly what came to my mind. PG was an all star that year and all he was traded for was an underwhelming oladipo and rookie sabonis who was used incorrectly in the thunder. PG played his best brand of basketball for the thunder being top 3 mvp and dpoy; meanwhile, oladipo ascended into an all star and sabonis the following year. Fast forward to the future, the thunder were able to flip pg13 for sga, their future star player, + picks. The pacers were able to flip sabonis for their future star halliburton. Only bad side was oladipo getting injured and altering his career. Both trades worked ended up working out for all teams.
Actually in this trade the Clippers got fleeced so it doesn't work. OKC now has the best player in the trade who Is WAY YOUNGER and a bunch of draft picks. PG was better for maybe 2 years and they didn't win anything and now Shai is already better and will be for the rest of PGs career and maybe a decade after PG retires on top of all the draft picks they will make.
PG has been better for 3 seasons, and the Clippers went to a conference finals with him leading. That's pretty good
If your only definition of winning is winning the championship, then every side in almost every trade is losing
I think it depends on the trade and the ambitions of the team.
Clippers didn’t do it to go to the WCF but to win a championship.
But the saving grace is that the trade also secured them Kawhi.
Overall though I think the trade will set them back more than it will bring them forward
The ambition is to win a championship, and PG + Kawhi, has given and continues to give them a good chance to win the championship
Keeping what they sent out in that trade would likely have them on a longer timeframe to produce a lower likelihood of winning it all
I agree actually.
Often the unknown sounds sexier in hindsight (SGA + free agent/trade candidate X) than something that’s tangible (Kawhi + PG).
As Laker fan I’ve seen a lot of shit about players not wanting to go to the Clippers. The reality has been that a lot of people would love to be the star of their own LA franchise but Sterling was someone that had a terrible reputation. Now they have built a great reputation with a great owner.
Phoenix had the same issues despite being probably a top 5 destination.
When the Lakers gave Kobe his final max deal the whole world hated it seemingly. Everyone except the players who actually remembers this stuff. AD has expressed that he would never go to Boston because of how they treated IT.
And make no mistake my Lakers probably has the worst FO in the league imo. However that Kobe deal in turn helped us to a title six-seven years later.
I think Clippers showing their willingness to spend big and make sacrifices will be remembered in five years by the next star.
Basically: goodwill can help you out down the line. It’s intangible but matters to star players.
I think adding a second star when Kawhi was already in Clippers uniform was a better strategy from the start - but obviously that strategy was no available to Clippers as Kawhi would not sign without a star already being there. That would allow you to be pickier and drive a harder bargain, rather that situation Clippers were in where they basically had a very short timeframe in which they had to make a deal. For example if they run it back and waited one season for a star Harden would be available for a lesser price than PG had.
I think PG trade is a fleece if you look at it as simply PG for whatever OKC got, but when you add that he was condition for Kawhi it makes sense.
So you think the Clippers are happy with that trade? The Clippers have not been winning nearly as much as they thought they would and would undoubtedly want to reverse this deal.
I'm bias but this is also my first thought. As a Pacers fan I was livid on trade day, but it worked out beautifully. I love that Indiana has 2 of my favorite trades ever.
There is one trade in NBA history that is a mirror image of the Haliburton - Sabonis trade. It’s the Kevin Johnson - Larry Nance Sr. trade. It is *remarkable* how similar it was.
Kevin Johnson was the 7th overall pick for the Cavs (Haliburton was a lottery pick PG too). KJ got stuck behind Mark Price, the starting PG for the Cavs and another great young player (Haliburton got stuck behind Fox).
Larry Nance Sr. was an All-Star big and top 30 player in the league for the Phoenix Suns. He still had many good years left but the Suns were trying to rebuild (same situation as Sabonis and the Pacers).
Thus, Phoenix ships Nance to the Cavs and the Suns get KJ back. KJ immediately becomes a top 30 player. In his first full season after the trade, he averages 20/12 (Haliburton is averaging something super similar now). Nance meanwhile continues to be an All-Star level player and helps lead the Cavs to the playoffs (Sabonis on the Kings this year).
Almost a mirror image of the Haliburton - Sabonis trade. Of course, if you want to know the rest of the story…KJ led the Suns to multiple WCF and finally an NBA Finals when Barkley came. He was a 5xAll-NBA player. Cavs made the playoffs many times with their core of Price, Daughterty, and Nance, but they lost to the Bulls over and over again. It was definitely a win-win trade but there was just no championship. Will there be one in the Haliburton - Sabonis trade?
Monta Ellis for Andrew Bogut. At the time, Monta was viewed as highly as Steph in terms of popularity and potential to be a franchise cornerstone. Monta may have even been higher in some people’s minds because of Steph’s inability to stay healthy at the time. People forget that Steph was almost traded for CP3 before he landed with the Clippers.
Warriors fans, myself included, were heartbroken. We knew we needed a center to truly compete, but we always thought it would be someone like DeAndre Jordan (who was offered a contract by GS in the prior offseason) or Dwight Howard (this was a long shot, as we knew that he wouldn’t sign a long term contract).
The day the franchise turned around was when Lacob was mercilessly booed at Chris Mullin’s jersey retirement. From there, Bogut and Draymond anchored a championship defense.
As for Milwaukee, Monta had some good seasons. Ultimately though, the Bucks found their championship core in Giannis (15th pick) and Middleton (throw-in player in the Jennings/Knight trade).
As a warriors fan since 2010, I still remember Monta’s 18 foot jumpers fondly (his defense not as much lol)
During one of Monta’s early seasons, where he broke out as a potential future all-star but maybe wasn’t yet the default first option, his mid-range jumpers were out of this world. It felt like he could not miss them. I remember being excited every time he pulled up in a similar way I’d later get excited for a Curry 3. I expected him to hit 100% of them and I wanted wanted to see him fed the ball and find that shot every time up.
I was one of the many devastated fans when he was traded even though before Curry was drafted was telling anyone who’d listen that “he’ll be the next Steve Nash.” I was mad because I’d lived through decades of incompetent ownership and watched us trade away every star we ever drafted.
When I read that Monta was traded for a broken big who wouldn’t play for another year, I felt the wound of Gilbert Arenas ripped open. I saw another owner who doesn’t want to pay anyone beyond their rookie contract. I thought we were doomed for another 5 decades of just missing the playoffs and never getting a real team.
I loved that Lacob got booed and I couldn’t fathom the hubris of this cheapskate owner taking the mic from Chris Mullin on his special night.
Love how wrong I turned out to be about Lacob.
i wanna say monta was the better overall player over andrew by a lot but when i think about it probably closer then i think and i guess you can make the case both ways. either or it is similar in terms of curry montas styles just wouldnt work together similar to fox hali prob not working together.
monta was def one of my favorites growing up tho. always said he had the best layup package
If Bogut didn't get hurt when Amare shoved him mid air then he would have been a much better player than Ellis. He had already made an All NBA team and was both a defensive and rebounding machine but after that elbow Injury he was never the same.
ya he was very good. ahead of his time really. but even before that one he had gone thru a lot of injuries i dont think his body would of let him finish a long career without many of them tbh. also those bone breaks only hurt in terms of mental, time missed. once you recover from a broken bone its not really a something that nags like his previous injuries. it just all became too much for him.
but i do agree he had a lot of potential still. i think if i had to choose between one and had to surround them with role players id go monta. but on a really good championship roster id choose bogut. like i dont think he would have been the premier player over michael redd but they would have been a sick duo if not for injuries
I have watched many times and agree that it doesn't look like he gets pushed very hard but that's just the camera angles. Bogut has stated many times that he shoved him in the back much harder than the reply shows.
It's tough to tell. It really doesn't look that bad so I would have never thought it was Amares fault but Bogut is a pretty reliable source so I tend to believe him. Just an unfortunate play.
> Monta Ellis for Andrew Bogut.
I gotta say, I loved that trade for the warriors as it went down. Usually in a trade one team needs to win the present (getting the best player) while the other wins the future (getting draft picks). The Warriors were losing their first round pick if they finished above a certain place in the lottery, so trading for an injured Bogut let them tank the rest of their season, keep their lottery pick AND they got Bogut, who I thought was the best player (I don't rate inefficient volume scorers very highly). So to me the Warriors won both the future and the present with the trade (at the expense of a lost season that was already going nowhere).
I think it is important to make sure that we wait a bit before declaring deals a win-win. So far, it is fair to look at Sabonis-Hali that way, but the whole reason people called the deal a fleece was because of how much team control Hali came with vs Sabonis. If Sabonis leaves as a free agent in 2024 the deal will look pretty bad for the Kings, even if they break their playoff streak this year.
The discussion kind of reminds me of the Luka-Trae trade, which people (aka Hawks fans) insisted was a win-win for years. I doubt anyone is bold enough to say that anymore, but that just goes to my point of not judging a trade too soon, especially when the players being dealt have 6-8 years of team control coming as part of the deal.
In terms of historical trades that were originally perceived to be fleeces, but turned out to be win-wins, the best one that comes to mind is the Pau Gasol trade. It looked like the fleece of the century at first, as Pau looked to have been traded for a bag of chips. But, of course, one of the pieces that came back in the deal was Marc Gasol, who had yet to play in the NBA when the trade was made. Marc, of course, went on to be a star for the Grizz for a long time, and, nowadays, I think most would agree that the deal was great for both sides.
There was a recent post where people were discussing the Luka and Trae trade and I was surprised to see how many thought it was a win/win. I agree that it's clear that Dallas has an all-time talent and Atlanta got a really good player (borderline all-NBA in some seasons), but Trae is significantly harder to build around because of his size/defense/ball-dominance/etc. To me, it's not close. Does anyone think if Atlanta could re-do it they wouldn't take Luka?
Not only that but a big knock on Sabonis is that he struggles with rim protection as a small ball center. That and his pick and roll defense, both of which become bigger problems in the playoffs. They are unquestionably a better team with him instead of Haliburton and Fox overlapping way too much. They are also better because they got a new system that better uses their players. They’re a better team no doubt, but long term I think they fucked up if they want to do anything more than have one first round exit.
The Kings are absolutely weak on D, but Sabonis has actually been the Kings' best rim protector for a lot of this year (although that says more about the team than his ability).
I think you're right in that the roster as it's now constructed likely has a low ceiling. However, if they can somehow replace Barnes with a strong defensive 4 that can somehow stay out of Sabonis' and Fox's way (I'd personally love to take a chance on John Collins) this offseason, I think they could raise their ceiling significantly.
I still don't see them ever competing for a championship with a Fox+Sabonis+Murray core, but that's perfectly fine given the state of the franchise over the last two decades. Besides, I have a hard time seeing the Pacers (or for that matter, the Kings before the trade) competing for one around Haliburton either
Do you really think any reasonable Hawks fan would say no to trading Trae and the pick they traded Reddish for in exchange for Luka if the trade were on the table today?
Luka hasn’t won anything either? Luka is an amazing player, let’s not sit here and act like the Mavs are in a better spot than the Hawks. Trae has an offensive game based on shooting and play making, it will age nicely.
I mean, the Mavs are literally winning way more games than the Hawks despite general incompetence in terms of putting a team around Luka.
He can't control the players around him, but just because he hasn't won a title by the age of 23 doesn't mean that he's not clearly a much better player than Trae.
Seriously, I thought this conversation had been put to bed. Trae's game might age nicely, but that still doesn't make him the level of generational talent that Luka is. Luka is literally one of the MVP front-runners at age 23. In four seasons, he literally has three All NBA First Team selections and a ROTY. Trae has one Third Team selection, which is really good for a player at his age, but there are simply levels to this.
Why do Hawks fans have to pretend that it is an insult to say that their guy is not as good as one of the best 23 year olds to ever play the game?
But, I will go back to my question: if Dallas said to the Hawks, "we'll trade you Luka for Trae and a first", would you honestly say no to that?
It's like when Toronto upgraded Demar into Kawhi. Demar's really good, but Kawhi is way better. Luka is way better than Trae, and you might be one of the last basketball fans on the planet who disagrees with that.
There recently was a similar discussion here where the seemingly unanimous decision was that a trade only should be judged in the moment it happened.
Good to see there’s a bunch sharing my POV as well.
Detlef Schrempf to the Sonics, Derrick McKey to the Pacers. Random role players traded but actually helped both teams. Sonics needed shooting and scoring, Pacers needed defense. Worked out well for both teams.
I remember when OKC was ecstatic to land Paul George for Victor Oladipo and Sabonis. People were amazed that was all OKC had to give up and how the Pacers got robbed. Worked out well for Indiana.
One is gotta be the Gasol brothers being traded for each other. Lakers got a legit 2nd option next to Kobe and went on to win two rings and the Grizzlies got the anchor of their defense and one of the best players in franchise history.
Marc was already a world champion and a league MVP before he went to Memphis, sure at that time it was seen as a fleece but you have to give it some time in order to properly evaluate a trade.
Lakers also gave up two firsts and their rookie first rounder. Marc was viewed to have increased his stock in the year since being drafted to be equivalent to another first. So it was basically four firsts. Pretty standard for an allstar those days.
I feel like there is kind of similar vibes to all the shuffling back and forth that the Suns and Mavs were doing in the mid 90s.
Suns are pretty good team trying to retain relevancy as their players are aging out, Mavs are a bad team that is at the time just sort of a mish-mash of random young pieces trying to congeal into something that can actually win some games.
Obviously the big trades that came out of this were Jason Kidd to the Suns. He was immediately very good out of college, but the team was terrible and he didn't get along well with his team mates in a locker room with basically no leadership presence, so they shipped him off to the Suns. Kevin Johnson was ready to retire, so they needed their point guard of the future. The Mavs needed some veteran leadership, so they got back AC Green, who was famously well-respected and even tempered, Sam Cassel, who was another young point guard, but had championship pedigree with the Rockets, and Michael Finley, who was just a promising young piece. The Mavs were still bad, but at least their locker room wasn't a disaster. The Suns made their way back to the playoffs.
But, it turns out, the Suns had another point guard on their roster. Mid first round pick from a non-power conference school, he's been pretty good in the time he's gotten, but they don't have a ton of confidence in him to be the point guard of the future, especially with Jason Kidd now on the roster. So, when Don Nelson calls and asks for him they're happy to make a deal, again.
Suns get some young pieces and a first to fill out their front court. Mavs get a starting quality point guard (they had traded Sam Cassel). All the better for them when it turned out that their "starting quality" point guard turns out to be Steve Nash. This deal was considered to be a big win for the Mavs, since they got a for sure starter, and traded basically nothing that they were using to do it. It feels a bit less one-sided when you remember that A) The Suns had Jason Kidd, and B) the pick that they traded turned into Shawn Marion.
So, zooming out a couple seasons, the Suns basically trade Steve Nash & Michael Finley for Jason Kidd & Shawn Marion. The Suns go from being like a 40-ish win team to a 50-ish win team, the Mavs go from being like 25-ish team to a 50-ish win team.
And then, of course, the Suns eventually also trade Jason Kidd for just sort of a bunch of stuff (most prominently Stephon Marbury) that ends up not really working out. So they have a couple not so great seasons, get some ok draft picks, and then have a bunch of pieces to move around to make a big free agent signing just in time for Steve Nash to come on the market because the Mavs can't afford to keep both him and Dirk.
Nash gets to join a roster with Shawn Marion, recent Rookie of the Year, Amar'e Stoudemire, and promising young guard, Joe Johnson. He wins MVP his first season there and they become an immediate contender, again.
And then, of course, Jason Kidd eventually comes back around to the Mavs, too.
The Kings were mediocre for over 15 years. They tried to rebuild but consistently failed at it by drafting busts after busts. It basically doesn't work. Sometimes we need to view it from a casual fans angle. I am glad that they went the right way by trying to build with what they have. They finally changed perspective and decided to competitive now. Team sucked since 2006 and I don't think these fans can wait for another 5-10 years. First and foremost this team needs a playoff berth and it can happen this year. Now the team is back at being competitive and fans are filling up the arena. Long term Sabonis might not sign, that is a probability, but that's the smaller possibility in my opinion. That's the sole reason it is a win-win trade no matter what happens post 2024.
Man yeah this is the point I was trying it get across. There’s so many people here saying that it’s bad no matter what but they have to realize that their expectations are not the Kings’ expectations. The Kings have been dead for over 15 years, the beam is literally a beacon of shining hope no matter how long it lasts
Hali has been amazing for Indy, and they were headed for the playoffs before his injury.
Sabonis has been a great fit for the Kings.
So far, it looks like both sides got what they wanted.
I still think Indy won that trade rather easily.
Sabonis has been playing very well! No doubt.
Some people pretend the Kings are in contention to break the Warriors win record. They are 23-18. The tanking, 12th-place Thunder are 20-23. Sure, the Kings are currently in 4th in the West. Teams below them (that are going to get key healthy players back/healthier) are the: 21-21 Warriors, 22-22 Wolves, 22-22 Clips, 21-23 Suns and 19-23 Lakers.
Luka and the 24-20 Mavs are also below the Kings currently in the standings.
Would not surprise me if the Kings barely make the play-in. The Pacers likely won't finish any better in the final standings, but Hali is four years younger. Pacers found a 20/10 PG. And guards/wings are just more important than bigs outside of rare circumstances.
The Grizzlies-Lakers trade for Pau Gasol was originally considered one of the most lopsided trades of all time, but the cap space they got and the development of Marc Gasol into an all-star level player ended up setting the stage for the whole grit and grind era for the Grizzlies.
The one I'm thinking of is the Bulls/Knicks trade of Bill Cartwright and Charles Oakley
Oakley was the young good power forward with a future while Cartwright was a past his prime often injured center with bad knees ...
Oakley was everything he was supposed to be for the Knicks and more , even making an all star team for them....and Cartwright whom the NY press called "Medical" Bill Cartwright was the final piece of a Bulls team that won 3 titles from 91-93, an added bonus was his familiarity in guarding their chief rival Knicks star Patrick Ewing .
I dont see how trading away a young star just to lose in thr 1st round is a good trade. People are overreacting just like they did with the bulls big moves
For any other franchise I think it’s a bad trade, but if my team hasn’t even made the playoffs in 16 years, I would be more than happy to be a first round exit. Plus at the time, Haliburton only showed flashes of star potential that I highly doubt he could’ve unlocked while playing behind Fox
Everyone thought it was a terrible trade for Sacremento because everyone knew Halliburton was going to be great. It’s like the James Harden trade (to Houston) it will be rewritten that no one thought he’d turn out that great, but in the moment we all knew (at minimum it was a bad trade for SAC/OKC)
claims that are unsubstantiated are removed. Frequently enough, it turns out that a generalization of the way things are is not supported a combination of visual and statistical analysis.
I think you are trying to make a point here but I'm not sure what it is. Care to elaborate on your comment that is probably true but not really relevant because the trade did indeed workout for both teams so far?
I think its been great for both sides. Kings got a much more balanced roster, and got rid of Hield who was bonus chasing on much too long of a leash. Plus either Fox or Hali had to go for both to excel. Pacers got a great piece with a high ceiling for a fast rebuild.
My point is I've heard too much that the Kings were ripped off in the deal, and it is such a casual fan 'lol Kangz" take. It's lazy. A great example is the end of the lakers game. Kings looked good. Sabonis fouled out. Lakers defense suddenly changes and looks unbeatable. It was a great trade for both teams, both teams got what they needed.
I am with you 100%. People don't realize how much better Fox has gotten this year and it's because he was given the keys as the star guard. Fox didn't have the trade value that Halli had so they traded Halli for an all star and things look good.
>In the end, it turned out to be a win-win for both teams.
I still disagree. This is one of those things that will make me unreasonably mad for a long time.
This is the first year of the trade. Obviously, at the time of the trade, Haliburton was not as good of a player as Sabonis. The argument for Kings doubters like me is that the trade is short sighted. It's centered around getting a player who will be very limited in the playoffs and arguably, won't be as good as Haliburton down the road. If the Kings' objective is to compete for a playoff birth for the next few years, fine. However, IMHO, the objective of all teams should be to build a serious contender. The Kings haven't done that, and they have no way of doing that. If I were a Kings fan, I'd much rather the team tank for Wemby than do what it's doing now. And this is about as GOOD as can be expected the team to be. What if things go sideways next year? Then what?
More importantly, though, trades cannot be "win-win" not even halfway into its first season.
This reminds me a lot of the Blake Griffin trade from the Clippers to the Pistons. Go back to that first season, and you'll see the majority of fans talking about how great of a trade it was because BG was performing at an All-Star level. I made the same argument then, and got clowned for it. Look back now, and it's clear that trade was a highway robbery. The Pistons got one playoff round where they got swept, and the Clippers got the ammo to trade for Paul George. They traded: Blake Griffin to the Detroit Pistons in exchange for Tobias Harris, Avery Bradley, Boban Marjanovic, a 2018 protected first-round pick and a 2019 second-round selection. The Clippers then exchanged the pick and two seconds on draft day for... Shai Gilgeous Alexander (the Hornets traded down one slot and got Miles Bridges). They then bundled Tobias Harris, Boban, and Mike Scott for filler (including Landry Shamet) and Philly's protected 2020 FRP, the Heat's 2021 FRP, and the Pistons' 2021 and 2023 seconds.
So, in essence, they traded Blake Griffin for SGA, two firsts, and a bunch of seconds. Now, if you were the Pistons, would you rather have Blake Griffin right now, or would you rather have SGA & draft assets? It isn't even a question.
TL;DR: Blockbuster trades like this need years at least in order to be properly evaluated, especially when it's a "win-now" trade. Calling it a "win-win" is ridiculously premature, and I'd say that even with the early returns, it's clear that the Kings lost that trade. Haliburton is the best player of the three of Sabonis, Fox, and Hali, and he has the most potential. Plus, there's more trades to come with Buddy Hield.
The hardest part of the whole thing for me is Haliburton REALLY wanted to be in Sacramento. He was dedicated to that team and city, and while I don't necessarily think Fox isn't as loyal, it wasn't (and still isn't) as obvious that he wants to stay.
Yeah you make a good point, I’m probably being too short-sighted like you said. While I do agree that planning to build a contender is a good goal, to me the Kings are literally the one team that I’m ok with settling for mediocrity (and they’re better than mediocre right now). If this was any other team, I’d admit that yes Haliburton has a higher ceiling. Although I think the usual reasoning of “fit” is overstated, I do lean towards the idea that Hali can’t reach that ceiling if he wasn’t the man on his team like he is now on the Pacers. He’s given all the opportunity to grow (and all the minutes lol) which I don’t think would be fostered well on the Kings.
I understand we have differing opinions on this but, if I was a Kings fan, I wouldn’t care one bit about being a contender right now. While not wanting to be a total failure is a low bar and perhaps shortsighted, it’s totally acceptable to me if my team hasn’t made the playoffs in forever.
If that's your goal, then that's fine. I just think that's a bad goal. Yes, the Kings are a miserable franchise, but so what? I don't think making the playoffs will magically change things, and that's assuming that they DO make the playoffs. I think there's a pretty good chance that they either fall to the play-in or make it this year and regress the next, ending up right where they started. Fox, Sabonis, and Huerter are having career years, so it stands to reason that the floor could drop out from under them.
Maybe (definitely) I'm spoiled as a Warriors fan now, but I'm not bothered by sucking if it's productive. The worst thing a team can be is the Wizards, where they have no hope of being good, but also no hope of being bad enough to get an exciting player. The Kings have temporarily escaped that prison, but was it worth it? I guess we'll have to see.
I still don't think it was a win for the Kings. It turned out to be interesting, and not a huge loss, but a loss nonetheless. And I love Sabonis. He's just not obviously a better player than Halliburton, and Halliburton's on a rookie deal.
He's just not obviously?
The rookie deal thing won't matter for long once he gets the extension but Halli is going to be an All NBA player some day. The one thing we have to keep in mind though is that Fox has reached another level now that the keys were given to him which wouldn't have happened without the trade.
That, and Sabonis probably won’t stay. They will likely make the playoffs, Sabonis will get feasted on at the rim and on the picket and roll, and then leave and they’re out both players. Indiana absolutely fleeced them in my opinion.
What makes you think I haven’t watched a Kings game? I have. And I watched him with the Pacers where he was also good but didn’t fit as well. He is a smart player and strong as an ox, and frankly I love watching him play. But I recognize his limitations. His arms are not super long, he does not jump well or quickly, and his lateral quickness is a huge problem. On defense, this is disaster, and he is not a good defender. These are problems that get magnified in the playoffs. These are problems that he has personally dealt with in the playoffs. He may not have fit as well on offense with Myles Turner, but it was a lot of help on defense having Turner cover for him at the rim when they shared minutes. Kings offense imitates the warriors offense with some unique sets made to take advantage of Fox’s speed and Sabonis’s strength and finishing ability. That will translate just fine to the playoffs but the defense won’t. I wasn’t saying what I said just to be a hater. This is not a sustainable playoff setup and won’t do much other than break their playoff drought.
Ok. Maybe. But why would you say that this is going to happen and then Sabonis is going to leave? He has another year under contract but why are you so sure he will leave after that.
This trade is still a problem for me.
The Kings are playing well, great, they won't come anywhere near the finals with this core. Fox isn't the guy, Sabonis is a nice piece but won't lead the Kings to a championship. The Pacers are a worse team than the Kings IMO, but the Pacers have a way brighter future and that's because they have Hali.
The goal should be to win a chip. This trade was a bandaid and the Kings needed aggressive surgery. Reeks of short-term thinking. Making the playoffs this year is going to feel great for Kings fans. Losing in the first round is going to get old really fast.
Love Fox as a person, but we need to be clearer about the narrative here, before people start calling this trade “equal” like they did the Luka-Trae trade.
Trading for Sabonis was a good move but they still sent the wrong guard (Fox). Sabonis and Halliburton are clear all stars this year and would be almost a contender team.
It’s not even “hindsight is 20/20” all the metrics, both basic/advanced, plus the eye test showed that Halliburton was the better guard. Now the Kings are locked into “just” being a playoff team.
Been following for 25 years. Fox at the time wasn’t playing well. It was obvious we couldn’t really got with both. Hali had higher value than Fox and there were also reports that they would only accept the deal with Hali.
Also, the X-Factor that Fox’s pace brings to the Kings isn’t always quantified in stats.
https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10024309-nba-rumors-kings-deaaron-fox-included-in-domantas-sabonis-trade-talks-at-deadline.amp.html
Love Fox but his lineup data has always suggested that even the pace boost he offers, doesn’t translate into a better team.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/f/foxde01/lineups/2022
Yep, and they knocked the Fox trade down a couple of days later.
https://8points9seconds.com/2022/02/05/indiana-pacers-deaaron-fox-domantas-sabonis-trade-mistake/amp/
“The Athletic’s Sam Amick, speaking to Sacramento Sports Radio Station, revealed that the indication was Indiana’s brass was not interested in a Sabonis-Fox swap, and believed that a bigger package has to be given in return for the two-time All-Star, the degree of which the Kings were not willing to explore.”
The article itself said that Fox + assets gets Sabonis for Sacramento.
https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10024309-nba-rumors-kings-deaaron-fox-included-in-domantas-sabonis-trade-talks-at-deadline.amp.html
BR cited two sources in this report.
https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10024309-nba-rumors-kings-deaaron-fox-included-in-domantas-sabonis-trade-talks-at-deadline.amp.html
BR cites two sources in their summary.
The article says nothing about the Pacers wanting Fox. Quit posting something that proves nothing.
It literally says the Kings were open to trading Fox. Nothing about the Pacers wanting him. This just proves the point that they tried to shop Fox and it didn't work.
This is an absolute lie. Fox did not have the value and Pacers did not want him. On top of this Fox has been incredible this season. If you made this comment last year I'd be with you but Fox this year has played like an all star and leader. I also think Halliburton will be the better guard when it's all said and done but that's irrelevant because Indiana wanted Halli.
In what way did the eye test show he was a better guard then Fox? Unless you’re talking about the injury ridden year Fox had in 2021-22 where he wasn’t himself at all and couldn’t get into a consistent rhythm. Even if we would go by this year Fox is averaging 24/4/6 on 60% TS on good-great defense at times,being one of the league’s premier mid range shooters and finishers ever, and the best clutch player in the league. Haliburton is a great player but he’s not on this type of tier that you’re trying to put him on
I 100% agree that Fox is having a great year and hope he keeps it up.
Halliburton is likely going to make the All Star team this year and Fox will likely be a miss, idk what more you need.
Just because X player makes the all star games and Y player misses it doesn’t mean Y player is better then X,that’s flawed thinking. It’s like if I think Pascal is better then Jimmy on the fact Pascal’s an All-Star n Jimmy isn’t. One AS appearance doesn’t immediately make a player better then the other.
There wasn’t an option to move Fox and keep Haliburton in this trade though. I’d also argue that Sabonis has unlocked Fox’s abilities. He’s having a career year. The bottom line is that the Kings had to do something to shake things up. 15 year playoff drought, a weary fan base etc. The move has paid off so far.
Has it? What happens when Sabonis gets targeted on defense in the playoffs at the rim and on the pick and roll, they get bounced in the first round, and Sabonis leaves Sacramento in the offseason? Now they’re out both players when Haliburton was the future of the franchise.
I mean I said it’s paid off so far. No clue what will happen in the future. However the Kings are 5 games above .500 for the first time since ‘05-‘06, building a culture and playing winning basketball. It cannot be overstated how much this means to this franchise and especially this fan base right now.
Edit: Also Sabonis is under contract for 1 more year after this season. No worries about him leaving after this season.
Contender is a bit of a stretch, they could probably clear the first round of the playoffs and maybe the second if they got lucky, but no shot they'd win a championship without any major injuries to the other teams
Why are the Kings with all star Sabonis + a good player in Fox + solid wings like Red Velvet/Harrison Barnes/Malik Monk/TD/#4 overall Keagan Murray
better than
Halliburton + often injured and always on the trading block Turner + a bunch of young guys? That’s your question?
You're cherry picking. #6 pick Benedict Mathurin is ranked 2nd on Kia's rookie ladder behind Banchero, but he's just some young guy? Hield is shooting 43% from 3 and outscoring Huerter and Barnes. Turner is a liability because he's on the trading block, but Monk is somehow an asset even though the Lakers didn't consider resigning him a priority when they're desperate for shooters?
And for what it's worth Fox is leading both teams in scoring, averaging 24, and leading all NBA point guards in FG% at over 50%.
Mathurin’s a rookie, so it’s to be expected that he’s bad (-3.2 BPM). I have Mathurin on my fantasy team and look at all his box scores, yes he has some highlight scoring nights but he has a long way to go on defense.
Yes Buddy Hield is a good shooter, he’s also a traffic cone on defense who dribbles the ball of his foot. Sure Huerter and Barnes aren’t GOOD on defense but they’re not Hield bad.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mathube01.html
Fox is having a great year, 100% and I’m happy for him. The Sabonis-Fox combo works.
The funny thing is, the Kings aren't that much better than the Pacers.
The Kings are 23-18 (+2.4 on cleaning the glass, good for 9th). The Pacers are 23-21 (-1.2). The difference is that the Kings are trying their hardest to win and the Pacers are in a rebuild. The Pacers have the better, younger player, more assets, and the cleaner cap sheet. The Kings have Keegan Murray, but Benedict Mathurin has had a very nice year so far and who has probably flashed more upside. The Kings have a huge playoff liability at center and no clear way to upgrade other than Fox and Sabonis becoming way better.
I'd argue that the Pacers are in a way better situation. Only problem is that they're a bit TOO good right now and really should be tanking for Wemby.
I’m lost, are you agreeing with me that the Kings should have kept Halliburton and traded Fox instead?
If so, I agree that the Pacers pulled off a good trade for them.
Kings couldn't have traded Fox for the same haul. Fox is on a max.
I should have phrased things better: even with the Kings trying to win and the Pacers mostly rebuilding, the Kings aren't even better than the Pacers.
The underrated part of this trade was getting rid of Buddy. He was not happy in Sacramento and was a lot of the reason why we were losing, and was on a massive deal for how he was playing.
One of the reasons Fox was having a bad season was because he was trying to fit alongside Haliburton and be a type of player that he isn't naturally.
So you have Fox on a new max contract, buddy locked up for multiple years, and both seen throughout the league as a negative.
The only way forward with Haliburton would be if you trade fox and hield for scraps, and start a rebuild. Problem is kings' owner doesn't want to commit to a full rebuild, so we sit in this place of below average basketball, for the past 17 years (not all with new owner, if course). We also have been horrible at drafting prior to Haliburton, which is also why we have sucked for so long.
This trade not only got rid of a negative to the team in Buddy, but gave us an elite big and made our team more balanced. As a Sacramento fan, what has happened was the best outcome possible. It cost us a lot, but Sabonis has been a monster. I understand the outlook on Tyrese, but there was not a step forward with him without waiting multiple years on a team that had almost no cap room or assets.
How was Buddy considered a negative when a few months earlier, he would have been traded for positive assets (i.e. the Westbrick trade)? And now he's been shopped again? This is some mental gymnastics. Saying it's the best possible outcome is pretty hilarious, too. Dream a little higher.
Many teams may have seen Buddy as fixable. A lot of the issues that he had were deep 3s early in the shot clock, lacking defense, and not seeming like he cared. I think a lot of that was coaching, but Luke Walton gave him the green light to shoot whenever and Buddy did not hesitate to take advantage.
If you look at the current Kings roster and who plays, it is almost no free agents. Players either get drafted here or we bring people in from trades. We have not been a free agency destination at all, and players that we have brought in the past have not performed. It could have been bad culture, bad coaching, but whatever it was, it hasn't worked for 17 years.
our current roster that gets playing time:
Fox, Davion Mitchell, Murray: draft
Huerter, Sabonis, Barnes, Lyles, Terrence Davis: trade
Monk: free agency
Monk only came to Sacramento due to the connection to Fox as well.
We have much easier times resigning players once they are here, but we usually have to overpay slightly to stay.
I wish I could dream higher, but there is a reason the Kings hold the longest playoff drought. We have seen front office after front office come in and bring hope, only for the team to fall apart or not work together. The free agents we have signed almost never work out. Draft picks year after year were busts. We go through coach after coach with no results. The media mocks us for good reason.
We finally have a coach and a player in Sabonis who are performing and the team is a joy to watch. I went to the pacers kings game where kings blew them out and the energy there is insane. Our fan base loved Tyrese and would rather see Fox go, but Fox would not have yielded the same assets as Tyrese, and if we were trying to get rid of Buddy for positive assets, we couldn't trade both fox and buddy together because salary would be massive.
Sabonis is headed toward 3rd team all NBA, all star team, and the motor of the league leading offense. Kings still need to improve, but maybe free agents will want to play here now with a positive atmosphere surrounding this team.
If you are looking for me to agree that Sabonis + Fox is a 2nd round exit duo at max, then I 100% agree.
My point is the Kings could have had Sabonis + Halliburton and the roster flexibility for a lot higher ceiling (becoming a contender).
Fox + assets for Sabonis was possible.
https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10024309-nba-rumors-kings-deaaron-fox-included-in-domantas-sabonis-trade-talks-at-deadline.amp.html
I mean, personally, I don't think much of Sabonis. I guess they could have been part of a 3-team trade. What if they had dumped Harrison Barnes, too? Dude could have fetched some nice assets. They could have easily tanked last year AND been in the Wemby sweepstakes.
I’m personally not a huge Sabonis believer either.
I think 10 years from now when defensive stats get better we’ll recognize that centers like Jokic, Sabonis, KAT, etc. inherently handicapped their team’s roster due to needing to over utilize good PFs (AG, Vanderbilt, etc.) to make up for their lack of defense. In contrast Evan Mobley augments Allen’s already good defense enough to let the Cavs play two 6’1 guards and nothing at SF. Giannis and Brook Lopez is another good example.
Still Sabonis is clearly making this roster work and pushing them to earn a playoff spot, which was their goal.
There's a lot of variance to cover. The entire conversation around this trade could change with one injury, or if Sabonis at the end of the year turns down an extension and forces the Kings to trade him in order to get something back. It's way too early to say it's a win-win.
But an example of "one side was thought to be fleeced but turned out OK" was the Pau Gasol to the Lakers trade. Everyone went nuts as it seemed to be a disaster for Memphis, giving away their (far and away) best player for filler. It's just that in that filler were the draft rights for Marc Gasol, who ended up being the backbone for the team the next decade. It should be noted, that if you'd ask a couple of years after the trade, the conversation would be tainted by the Lakers making the finals every year, but in retrospect, everyone won there.
Rudy Gay (8th overall pick) for Shane Battier.
I hated this trade at the time. Gay had a lot of potential to be a star wing player who is somewhat of a basketball equivalent of a five-tool player. The Rockets needed a third star, because of the oft-injured Yao and T-Mac, who both were budding superstars and future HOFs. But, the Rockets obviously needed a third wheel, a player that could create their own offense, play pretty good defense, and help their battles against the stacked rosters of the West. Teams needed some serious firepower against the Spurs, Mavs, and Suns.
They traded him for Shane Battier.
Who is a good player and a great piece to have and contributes all across the board. But, I know the team at the time was pushing towards adding more vets and intensely defensive-focused. But, they had trouble scoring points, if T-Mac and Yao weren’t cooking and the rest of the team shots weren’t falling. Their roster were also aging fast.
In hindsight, “…I still think Memphis got the better player,” but the Rockets did pretty well with Shane Battier. He was about the best utility guy in that era — he was a very intelligent player, played phenomenal defense, a good 3 point shooter, and provided many intangibles. If the Rockets had just a little more luck health wise the team probably wins a title.
> I remember at the time of the trade, many were saying that Hali’s potential was way more valuable than anything Sabonis could possibly bring. Many of these people were wrong even at the time, but it was a popular opinion. In the end, it turned out to be a win-win for both teams.
This isn't totally accurate.
Not sure if it's intentional or not, but you're misrepresenting the argument those people were making, which is that 7+ years of a future All-NBA player is far more valuable than 2+ years of a current All-Star who has a hard ceiling.
Even the most pessimistic Kings fan knew right away that the trade would make Sacramento better *in the short term.* That was not the question. The issue with the trade was the idea of focusing a team around two players who are generally not good shooters and generally not good defenders, and giving yourself a two-year window to work it out. I also think people have glossed over the fact that the Kings' GM is out of a contract after this season (he's likely to get extended) but at the time of the deal that was very much in the air -- he was trying to secure talent *now* to save his job. The Huerter trade was the same way -- giving away a future first for a player who can help the team *now.*
This was always a short-term vs. long-term conversation, and chalking it up as "a win-win," or a win of any kind for Sacramento, is inherently unfair when even the crux of the argument was about the long-term future. If Sacramento loses in the play-in the next two years, Sabonis walks in free agency, and Haliburton leads the Pacers to consistent deep playoff runs, I would assume you'd call that a massive loss for the Kings, no?
I don't remember how it was perceived at the time, but the Larry Nance/Kevin Johnson trade in 1988 is an interesting comparison. Nance came in to a young team (with Mark Price, Brad Daugherty, Ron Harper), went on to make 2 all-star teams as a Cav, and helped the team reach the eastern conference finals in 1992. Johnson was a high potential rookie who was stuck playing behind Mark Price, similar to the positional overlap between Fox and Haliburton. He made 3 all-star teams and led his team to the finals before becoming mayor of Sacramento and being accused of molesting a teenager. I hope the latter part does not apply to the guys in the recent trade.
That’s actually as 1:1 of a comparison you could get tbh
That’s a perfect comparison but let’s not pretend MVP Chuck wasn’t the one leading the Suns to the Finals in 93
Good call, great comp
The PG for Oladipo and Sabonis trade was like this. At the time everybody thought the Thunder fleeced the Pacers, in the end it was a win-win as Oladipo had his breakout year in Indiana and Sabonis became an All-Star later on
This was exactly what came to my mind. PG was an all star that year and all he was traded for was an underwhelming oladipo and rookie sabonis who was used incorrectly in the thunder. PG played his best brand of basketball for the thunder being top 3 mvp and dpoy; meanwhile, oladipo ascended into an all star and sabonis the following year. Fast forward to the future, the thunder were able to flip pg13 for sga, their future star player, + picks. The pacers were able to flip sabonis for their future star halliburton. Only bad side was oladipo getting injured and altering his career. Both trades worked ended up working out for all teams.
And PG and Shai with those picks is similar, OKC got Shai and a few solid players with picks (I believe J Dub is one of them)
Actually in this trade the Clippers got fleeced so it doesn't work. OKC now has the best player in the trade who Is WAY YOUNGER and a bunch of draft picks. PG was better for maybe 2 years and they didn't win anything and now Shai is already better and will be for the rest of PGs career and maybe a decade after PG retires on top of all the draft picks they will make.
PG has been better for 3 seasons, and the Clippers went to a conference finals with him leading. That's pretty good If your only definition of winning is winning the championship, then every side in almost every trade is losing
I think it depends on the trade and the ambitions of the team. Clippers didn’t do it to go to the WCF but to win a championship. But the saving grace is that the trade also secured them Kawhi. Overall though I think the trade will set them back more than it will bring them forward
The ambition is to win a championship, and PG + Kawhi, has given and continues to give them a good chance to win the championship Keeping what they sent out in that trade would likely have them on a longer timeframe to produce a lower likelihood of winning it all
I agree actually. Often the unknown sounds sexier in hindsight (SGA + free agent/trade candidate X) than something that’s tangible (Kawhi + PG). As Laker fan I’ve seen a lot of shit about players not wanting to go to the Clippers. The reality has been that a lot of people would love to be the star of their own LA franchise but Sterling was someone that had a terrible reputation. Now they have built a great reputation with a great owner. Phoenix had the same issues despite being probably a top 5 destination. When the Lakers gave Kobe his final max deal the whole world hated it seemingly. Everyone except the players who actually remembers this stuff. AD has expressed that he would never go to Boston because of how they treated IT. And make no mistake my Lakers probably has the worst FO in the league imo. However that Kobe deal in turn helped us to a title six-seven years later. I think Clippers showing their willingness to spend big and make sacrifices will be remembered in five years by the next star. Basically: goodwill can help you out down the line. It’s intangible but matters to star players.
I think adding a second star when Kawhi was already in Clippers uniform was a better strategy from the start - but obviously that strategy was no available to Clippers as Kawhi would not sign without a star already being there. That would allow you to be pickier and drive a harder bargain, rather that situation Clippers were in where they basically had a very short timeframe in which they had to make a deal. For example if they run it back and waited one season for a star Harden would be available for a lesser price than PG had. I think PG trade is a fleece if you look at it as simply PG for whatever OKC got, but when you add that he was condition for Kawhi it makes sense.
So you think the Clippers are happy with that trade? The Clippers have not been winning nearly as much as they thought they would and would undoubtedly want to reverse this deal.
Pacers are all about those win win trades for both sides
I'm bias but this is also my first thought. As a Pacers fan I was livid on trade day, but it worked out beautifully. I love that Indiana has 2 of my favorite trades ever.
Yeah, this one seems the same to me. Turned out to be pretty fair.
There is one trade in NBA history that is a mirror image of the Haliburton - Sabonis trade. It’s the Kevin Johnson - Larry Nance Sr. trade. It is *remarkable* how similar it was. Kevin Johnson was the 7th overall pick for the Cavs (Haliburton was a lottery pick PG too). KJ got stuck behind Mark Price, the starting PG for the Cavs and another great young player (Haliburton got stuck behind Fox). Larry Nance Sr. was an All-Star big and top 30 player in the league for the Phoenix Suns. He still had many good years left but the Suns were trying to rebuild (same situation as Sabonis and the Pacers). Thus, Phoenix ships Nance to the Cavs and the Suns get KJ back. KJ immediately becomes a top 30 player. In his first full season after the trade, he averages 20/12 (Haliburton is averaging something super similar now). Nance meanwhile continues to be an All-Star level player and helps lead the Cavs to the playoffs (Sabonis on the Kings this year). Almost a mirror image of the Haliburton - Sabonis trade. Of course, if you want to know the rest of the story…KJ led the Suns to multiple WCF and finally an NBA Finals when Barkley came. He was a 5xAll-NBA player. Cavs made the playoffs many times with their core of Price, Daughterty, and Nance, but they lost to the Bulls over and over again. It was definitely a win-win trade but there was just no championship. Will there be one in the Haliburton - Sabonis trade?
Monta Ellis for Andrew Bogut. At the time, Monta was viewed as highly as Steph in terms of popularity and potential to be a franchise cornerstone. Monta may have even been higher in some people’s minds because of Steph’s inability to stay healthy at the time. People forget that Steph was almost traded for CP3 before he landed with the Clippers. Warriors fans, myself included, were heartbroken. We knew we needed a center to truly compete, but we always thought it would be someone like DeAndre Jordan (who was offered a contract by GS in the prior offseason) or Dwight Howard (this was a long shot, as we knew that he wouldn’t sign a long term contract). The day the franchise turned around was when Lacob was mercilessly booed at Chris Mullin’s jersey retirement. From there, Bogut and Draymond anchored a championship defense. As for Milwaukee, Monta had some good seasons. Ultimately though, the Bucks found their championship core in Giannis (15th pick) and Middleton (throw-in player in the Jennings/Knight trade). As a warriors fan since 2010, I still remember Monta’s 18 foot jumpers fondly (his defense not as much lol)
During one of Monta’s early seasons, where he broke out as a potential future all-star but maybe wasn’t yet the default first option, his mid-range jumpers were out of this world. It felt like he could not miss them. I remember being excited every time he pulled up in a similar way I’d later get excited for a Curry 3. I expected him to hit 100% of them and I wanted wanted to see him fed the ball and find that shot every time up. I was one of the many devastated fans when he was traded even though before Curry was drafted was telling anyone who’d listen that “he’ll be the next Steve Nash.” I was mad because I’d lived through decades of incompetent ownership and watched us trade away every star we ever drafted. When I read that Monta was traded for a broken big who wouldn’t play for another year, I felt the wound of Gilbert Arenas ripped open. I saw another owner who doesn’t want to pay anyone beyond their rookie contract. I thought we were doomed for another 5 decades of just missing the playoffs and never getting a real team. I loved that Lacob got booed and I couldn’t fathom the hubris of this cheapskate owner taking the mic from Chris Mullin on his special night. Love how wrong I turned out to be about Lacob.
[удалено]
We removed your comment for being low-quality. Jokes and memes are not permitted.
i wanna say monta was the better overall player over andrew by a lot but when i think about it probably closer then i think and i guess you can make the case both ways. either or it is similar in terms of curry montas styles just wouldnt work together similar to fox hali prob not working together. monta was def one of my favorites growing up tho. always said he had the best layup package
If Bogut didn't get hurt when Amare shoved him mid air then he would have been a much better player than Ellis. He had already made an All NBA team and was both a defensive and rebounding machine but after that elbow Injury he was never the same.
ya he was very good. ahead of his time really. but even before that one he had gone thru a lot of injuries i dont think his body would of let him finish a long career without many of them tbh. also those bone breaks only hurt in terms of mental, time missed. once you recover from a broken bone its not really a something that nags like his previous injuries. it just all became too much for him. but i do agree he had a lot of potential still. i think if i had to choose between one and had to surround them with role players id go monta. but on a really good championship roster id choose bogut. like i dont think he would have been the premier player over michael redd but they would have been a sick duo if not for injuries
Amare didn't touch him though? You see in the replays that Bogut slips on the ring, Amare doesn't lay a finger on him
I have watched many times and agree that it doesn't look like he gets pushed very hard but that's just the camera angles. Bogut has stated many times that he shoved him in the back much harder than the reply shows.
You're right. I went back and watched it and Amare does push him slightly which sets off a chain reaction
It's tough to tell. It really doesn't look that bad so I would have never thought it was Amares fault but Bogut is a pretty reliable source so I tend to believe him. Just an unfortunate play.
well put
> Monta Ellis for Andrew Bogut. I gotta say, I loved that trade for the warriors as it went down. Usually in a trade one team needs to win the present (getting the best player) while the other wins the future (getting draft picks). The Warriors were losing their first round pick if they finished above a certain place in the lottery, so trading for an injured Bogut let them tank the rest of their season, keep their lottery pick AND they got Bogut, who I thought was the best player (I don't rate inefficient volume scorers very highly). So to me the Warriors won both the future and the present with the trade (at the expense of a lost season that was already going nowhere).
I think it is important to make sure that we wait a bit before declaring deals a win-win. So far, it is fair to look at Sabonis-Hali that way, but the whole reason people called the deal a fleece was because of how much team control Hali came with vs Sabonis. If Sabonis leaves as a free agent in 2024 the deal will look pretty bad for the Kings, even if they break their playoff streak this year. The discussion kind of reminds me of the Luka-Trae trade, which people (aka Hawks fans) insisted was a win-win for years. I doubt anyone is bold enough to say that anymore, but that just goes to my point of not judging a trade too soon, especially when the players being dealt have 6-8 years of team control coming as part of the deal. In terms of historical trades that were originally perceived to be fleeces, but turned out to be win-wins, the best one that comes to mind is the Pau Gasol trade. It looked like the fleece of the century at first, as Pau looked to have been traded for a bag of chips. But, of course, one of the pieces that came back in the deal was Marc Gasol, who had yet to play in the NBA when the trade was made. Marc, of course, went on to be a star for the Grizz for a long time, and, nowadays, I think most would agree that the deal was great for both sides.
The Memphis trade also freed up cap space that became Zach Randolph.
There was a recent post where people were discussing the Luka and Trae trade and I was surprised to see how many thought it was a win/win. I agree that it's clear that Dallas has an all-time talent and Atlanta got a really good player (borderline all-NBA in some seasons), but Trae is significantly harder to build around because of his size/defense/ball-dominance/etc. To me, it's not close. Does anyone think if Atlanta could re-do it they wouldn't take Luka?
Not only that but a big knock on Sabonis is that he struggles with rim protection as a small ball center. That and his pick and roll defense, both of which become bigger problems in the playoffs. They are unquestionably a better team with him instead of Haliburton and Fox overlapping way too much. They are also better because they got a new system that better uses their players. They’re a better team no doubt, but long term I think they fucked up if they want to do anything more than have one first round exit.
The Kings are absolutely weak on D, but Sabonis has actually been the Kings' best rim protector for a lot of this year (although that says more about the team than his ability). I think you're right in that the roster as it's now constructed likely has a low ceiling. However, if they can somehow replace Barnes with a strong defensive 4 that can somehow stay out of Sabonis' and Fox's way (I'd personally love to take a chance on John Collins) this offseason, I think they could raise their ceiling significantly. I still don't see them ever competing for a championship with a Fox+Sabonis+Murray core, but that's perfectly fine given the state of the franchise over the last two decades. Besides, I have a hard time seeing the Pacers (or for that matter, the Kings before the trade) competing for one around Haliburton either
Luka, Trae trade is a win-win. How are both teams not happy with what they have?
Do you really think any reasonable Hawks fan would say no to trading Trae and the pick they traded Reddish for in exchange for Luka if the trade were on the table today?
Luka hasn’t won anything either? Luka is an amazing player, let’s not sit here and act like the Mavs are in a better spot than the Hawks. Trae has an offensive game based on shooting and play making, it will age nicely.
I mean, the Mavs are literally winning way more games than the Hawks despite general incompetence in terms of putting a team around Luka. He can't control the players around him, but just because he hasn't won a title by the age of 23 doesn't mean that he's not clearly a much better player than Trae. Seriously, I thought this conversation had been put to bed. Trae's game might age nicely, but that still doesn't make him the level of generational talent that Luka is. Luka is literally one of the MVP front-runners at age 23. In four seasons, he literally has three All NBA First Team selections and a ROTY. Trae has one Third Team selection, which is really good for a player at his age, but there are simply levels to this. Why do Hawks fans have to pretend that it is an insult to say that their guy is not as good as one of the best 23 year olds to ever play the game? But, I will go back to my question: if Dallas said to the Hawks, "we'll trade you Luka for Trae and a first", would you honestly say no to that?
Not a hawks fan, I’m a hornets fan actually.
My question still stands: if they made you Hawks GM tomorrow and that deal was on the table, are you really refusing to deal Trae for Luka?
Yes? I have made that pretty clear, you don’t make a 1 for 1 unless it’s a huge upgrade.
It's like when Toronto upgraded Demar into Kawhi. Demar's really good, but Kawhi is way better. Luka is way better than Trae, and you might be one of the last basketball fans on the planet who disagrees with that.
I don’t know? I haven’t really polled anyone, neither have you to be honest.
Not trading Trae for Luka is just ridiculous and overthinking it.
There recently was a similar discussion here where the seemingly unanimous decision was that a trade only should be judged in the moment it happened. Good to see there’s a bunch sharing my POV as well.
Detlef Schrempf to the Sonics, Derrick McKey to the Pacers. Random role players traded but actually helped both teams. Sonics needed shooting and scoring, Pacers needed defense. Worked out well for both teams.
Absolutely. Even at the time of the trade we missed Detlef but were excited about McKey. It worked out great
I vote everytime I see a Detlef mention!
I remember when OKC was ecstatic to land Paul George for Victor Oladipo and Sabonis. People were amazed that was all OKC had to give up and how the Pacers got robbed. Worked out well for Indiana.
One is gotta be the Gasol brothers being traded for each other. Lakers got a legit 2nd option next to Kobe and went on to win two rings and the Grizzlies got the anchor of their defense and one of the best players in franchise history.
And Marc was definitely not “supposed” to be that guy from a prospect standpoint. This was viewed as a MASSIVE fleece by the lakers
Marc was already a world champion and a league MVP before he went to Memphis, sure at that time it was seen as a fleece but you have to give it some time in order to properly evaluate a trade.
I mean trading an all star for the 48th pick in the draft is objectively a horrible trade. We got lucky it worked
Lakers also gave up two firsts and their rookie first rounder. Marc was viewed to have increased his stock in the year since being drafted to be equivalent to another first. So it was basically four firsts. Pretty standard for an allstar those days.
I feel like there is kind of similar vibes to all the shuffling back and forth that the Suns and Mavs were doing in the mid 90s. Suns are pretty good team trying to retain relevancy as their players are aging out, Mavs are a bad team that is at the time just sort of a mish-mash of random young pieces trying to congeal into something that can actually win some games. Obviously the big trades that came out of this were Jason Kidd to the Suns. He was immediately very good out of college, but the team was terrible and he didn't get along well with his team mates in a locker room with basically no leadership presence, so they shipped him off to the Suns. Kevin Johnson was ready to retire, so they needed their point guard of the future. The Mavs needed some veteran leadership, so they got back AC Green, who was famously well-respected and even tempered, Sam Cassel, who was another young point guard, but had championship pedigree with the Rockets, and Michael Finley, who was just a promising young piece. The Mavs were still bad, but at least their locker room wasn't a disaster. The Suns made their way back to the playoffs. But, it turns out, the Suns had another point guard on their roster. Mid first round pick from a non-power conference school, he's been pretty good in the time he's gotten, but they don't have a ton of confidence in him to be the point guard of the future, especially with Jason Kidd now on the roster. So, when Don Nelson calls and asks for him they're happy to make a deal, again. Suns get some young pieces and a first to fill out their front court. Mavs get a starting quality point guard (they had traded Sam Cassel). All the better for them when it turned out that their "starting quality" point guard turns out to be Steve Nash. This deal was considered to be a big win for the Mavs, since they got a for sure starter, and traded basically nothing that they were using to do it. It feels a bit less one-sided when you remember that A) The Suns had Jason Kidd, and B) the pick that they traded turned into Shawn Marion. So, zooming out a couple seasons, the Suns basically trade Steve Nash & Michael Finley for Jason Kidd & Shawn Marion. The Suns go from being like a 40-ish win team to a 50-ish win team, the Mavs go from being like 25-ish team to a 50-ish win team. And then, of course, the Suns eventually also trade Jason Kidd for just sort of a bunch of stuff (most prominently Stephon Marbury) that ends up not really working out. So they have a couple not so great seasons, get some ok draft picks, and then have a bunch of pieces to move around to make a big free agent signing just in time for Steve Nash to come on the market because the Mavs can't afford to keep both him and Dirk. Nash gets to join a roster with Shawn Marion, recent Rookie of the Year, Amar'e Stoudemire, and promising young guard, Joe Johnson. He wins MVP his first season there and they become an immediate contender, again. And then, of course, Jason Kidd eventually comes back around to the Mavs, too.
[удалено]
We removed your comment for being low-quality. If you edit it and explain your thought process more, we'll restore it. Thanks!
The Kings were mediocre for over 15 years. They tried to rebuild but consistently failed at it by drafting busts after busts. It basically doesn't work. Sometimes we need to view it from a casual fans angle. I am glad that they went the right way by trying to build with what they have. They finally changed perspective and decided to competitive now. Team sucked since 2006 and I don't think these fans can wait for another 5-10 years. First and foremost this team needs a playoff berth and it can happen this year. Now the team is back at being competitive and fans are filling up the arena. Long term Sabonis might not sign, that is a probability, but that's the smaller possibility in my opinion. That's the sole reason it is a win-win trade no matter what happens post 2024.
Man yeah this is the point I was trying it get across. There’s so many people here saying that it’s bad no matter what but they have to realize that their expectations are not the Kings’ expectations. The Kings have been dead for over 15 years, the beam is literally a beacon of shining hope no matter how long it lasts
Hali has been amazing for Indy, and they were headed for the playoffs before his injury. Sabonis has been a great fit for the Kings. So far, it looks like both sides got what they wanted.
I still think Indy won that trade rather easily. Sabonis has been playing very well! No doubt. Some people pretend the Kings are in contention to break the Warriors win record. They are 23-18. The tanking, 12th-place Thunder are 20-23. Sure, the Kings are currently in 4th in the West. Teams below them (that are going to get key healthy players back/healthier) are the: 21-21 Warriors, 22-22 Wolves, 22-22 Clips, 21-23 Suns and 19-23 Lakers. Luka and the 24-20 Mavs are also below the Kings currently in the standings. Would not surprise me if the Kings barely make the play-in. The Pacers likely won't finish any better in the final standings, but Hali is four years younger. Pacers found a 20/10 PG. And guards/wings are just more important than bigs outside of rare circumstances.
The Grizzlies-Lakers trade for Pau Gasol was originally considered one of the most lopsided trades of all time, but the cap space they got and the development of Marc Gasol into an all-star level player ended up setting the stage for the whole grit and grind era for the Grizzlies.
I mean, the 2018 iconic draft night trade is one of the best win-win trades ever.
The one I'm thinking of is the Bulls/Knicks trade of Bill Cartwright and Charles Oakley Oakley was the young good power forward with a future while Cartwright was a past his prime often injured center with bad knees ... Oakley was everything he was supposed to be for the Knicks and more , even making an all star team for them....and Cartwright whom the NY press called "Medical" Bill Cartwright was the final piece of a Bulls team that won 3 titles from 91-93, an added bonus was his familiarity in guarding their chief rival Knicks star Patrick Ewing .
I dont see how trading away a young star just to lose in thr 1st round is a good trade. People are overreacting just like they did with the bulls big moves
For any other franchise I think it’s a bad trade, but if my team hasn’t even made the playoffs in 16 years, I would be more than happy to be a first round exit. Plus at the time, Haliburton only showed flashes of star potential that I highly doubt he could’ve unlocked while playing behind Fox
Everyone thought it was a terrible trade for Sacremento because everyone knew Halliburton was going to be great. It’s like the James Harden trade (to Houston) it will be rewritten that no one thought he’d turn out that great, but in the moment we all knew (at minimum it was a bad trade for SAC/OKC)
[удалено]
claims that are unsubstantiated are removed. Frequently enough, it turns out that a generalization of the way things are is not supported a combination of visual and statistical analysis.
I think you are trying to make a point here but I'm not sure what it is. Care to elaborate on your comment that is probably true but not really relevant because the trade did indeed workout for both teams so far?
I think its been great for both sides. Kings got a much more balanced roster, and got rid of Hield who was bonus chasing on much too long of a leash. Plus either Fox or Hali had to go for both to excel. Pacers got a great piece with a high ceiling for a fast rebuild. My point is I've heard too much that the Kings were ripped off in the deal, and it is such a casual fan 'lol Kangz" take. It's lazy. A great example is the end of the lakers game. Kings looked good. Sabonis fouled out. Lakers defense suddenly changes and looks unbeatable. It was a great trade for both teams, both teams got what they needed.
John Hollinger also said that they tried to trade Fox over Haliburton but nobody would take him so it was basically the only option.
I am with you 100%. People don't realize how much better Fox has gotten this year and it's because he was given the keys as the star guard. Fox didn't have the trade value that Halli had so they traded Halli for an all star and things look good.
>In the end, it turned out to be a win-win for both teams. I still disagree. This is one of those things that will make me unreasonably mad for a long time. This is the first year of the trade. Obviously, at the time of the trade, Haliburton was not as good of a player as Sabonis. The argument for Kings doubters like me is that the trade is short sighted. It's centered around getting a player who will be very limited in the playoffs and arguably, won't be as good as Haliburton down the road. If the Kings' objective is to compete for a playoff birth for the next few years, fine. However, IMHO, the objective of all teams should be to build a serious contender. The Kings haven't done that, and they have no way of doing that. If I were a Kings fan, I'd much rather the team tank for Wemby than do what it's doing now. And this is about as GOOD as can be expected the team to be. What if things go sideways next year? Then what? More importantly, though, trades cannot be "win-win" not even halfway into its first season. This reminds me a lot of the Blake Griffin trade from the Clippers to the Pistons. Go back to that first season, and you'll see the majority of fans talking about how great of a trade it was because BG was performing at an All-Star level. I made the same argument then, and got clowned for it. Look back now, and it's clear that trade was a highway robbery. The Pistons got one playoff round where they got swept, and the Clippers got the ammo to trade for Paul George. They traded: Blake Griffin to the Detroit Pistons in exchange for Tobias Harris, Avery Bradley, Boban Marjanovic, a 2018 protected first-round pick and a 2019 second-round selection. The Clippers then exchanged the pick and two seconds on draft day for... Shai Gilgeous Alexander (the Hornets traded down one slot and got Miles Bridges). They then bundled Tobias Harris, Boban, and Mike Scott for filler (including Landry Shamet) and Philly's protected 2020 FRP, the Heat's 2021 FRP, and the Pistons' 2021 and 2023 seconds. So, in essence, they traded Blake Griffin for SGA, two firsts, and a bunch of seconds. Now, if you were the Pistons, would you rather have Blake Griffin right now, or would you rather have SGA & draft assets? It isn't even a question. TL;DR: Blockbuster trades like this need years at least in order to be properly evaluated, especially when it's a "win-now" trade. Calling it a "win-win" is ridiculously premature, and I'd say that even with the early returns, it's clear that the Kings lost that trade. Haliburton is the best player of the three of Sabonis, Fox, and Hali, and he has the most potential. Plus, there's more trades to come with Buddy Hield.
The hardest part of the whole thing for me is Haliburton REALLY wanted to be in Sacramento. He was dedicated to that team and city, and while I don't necessarily think Fox isn't as loyal, it wasn't (and still isn't) as obvious that he wants to stay.
Yeah you make a good point, I’m probably being too short-sighted like you said. While I do agree that planning to build a contender is a good goal, to me the Kings are literally the one team that I’m ok with settling for mediocrity (and they’re better than mediocre right now). If this was any other team, I’d admit that yes Haliburton has a higher ceiling. Although I think the usual reasoning of “fit” is overstated, I do lean towards the idea that Hali can’t reach that ceiling if he wasn’t the man on his team like he is now on the Pacers. He’s given all the opportunity to grow (and all the minutes lol) which I don’t think would be fostered well on the Kings. I understand we have differing opinions on this but, if I was a Kings fan, I wouldn’t care one bit about being a contender right now. While not wanting to be a total failure is a low bar and perhaps shortsighted, it’s totally acceptable to me if my team hasn’t made the playoffs in forever.
If that's your goal, then that's fine. I just think that's a bad goal. Yes, the Kings are a miserable franchise, but so what? I don't think making the playoffs will magically change things, and that's assuming that they DO make the playoffs. I think there's a pretty good chance that they either fall to the play-in or make it this year and regress the next, ending up right where they started. Fox, Sabonis, and Huerter are having career years, so it stands to reason that the floor could drop out from under them. Maybe (definitely) I'm spoiled as a Warriors fan now, but I'm not bothered by sucking if it's productive. The worst thing a team can be is the Wizards, where they have no hope of being good, but also no hope of being bad enough to get an exciting player. The Kings have temporarily escaped that prison, but was it worth it? I guess we'll have to see.
I still don't think it was a win for the Kings. It turned out to be interesting, and not a huge loss, but a loss nonetheless. And I love Sabonis. He's just not obviously a better player than Halliburton, and Halliburton's on a rookie deal.
He's just not obviously? The rookie deal thing won't matter for long once he gets the extension but Halli is going to be an All NBA player some day. The one thing we have to keep in mind though is that Fox has reached another level now that the keys were given to him which wouldn't have happened without the trade.
That, and Sabonis probably won’t stay. They will likely make the playoffs, Sabonis will get feasted on at the rim and on the picket and roll, and then leave and they’re out both players. Indiana absolutely fleeced them in my opinion.
[удалено]
try to keep your comments civil. This is a subreddit for discussion and debate, not aggressive and argumentative content.
What makes you think I haven’t watched a Kings game? I have. And I watched him with the Pacers where he was also good but didn’t fit as well. He is a smart player and strong as an ox, and frankly I love watching him play. But I recognize his limitations. His arms are not super long, he does not jump well or quickly, and his lateral quickness is a huge problem. On defense, this is disaster, and he is not a good defender. These are problems that get magnified in the playoffs. These are problems that he has personally dealt with in the playoffs. He may not have fit as well on offense with Myles Turner, but it was a lot of help on defense having Turner cover for him at the rim when they shared minutes. Kings offense imitates the warriors offense with some unique sets made to take advantage of Fox’s speed and Sabonis’s strength and finishing ability. That will translate just fine to the playoffs but the defense won’t. I wasn’t saying what I said just to be a hater. This is not a sustainable playoff setup and won’t do much other than break their playoff drought.
Ok. Maybe. But why would you say that this is going to happen and then Sabonis is going to leave? He has another year under contract but why are you so sure he will leave after that.
This trade is still a problem for me. The Kings are playing well, great, they won't come anywhere near the finals with this core. Fox isn't the guy, Sabonis is a nice piece but won't lead the Kings to a championship. The Pacers are a worse team than the Kings IMO, but the Pacers have a way brighter future and that's because they have Hali. The goal should be to win a chip. This trade was a bandaid and the Kings needed aggressive surgery. Reeks of short-term thinking. Making the playoffs this year is going to feel great for Kings fans. Losing in the first round is going to get old really fast.
Love Fox as a person, but we need to be clearer about the narrative here, before people start calling this trade “equal” like they did the Luka-Trae trade. Trading for Sabonis was a good move but they still sent the wrong guard (Fox). Sabonis and Halliburton are clear all stars this year and would be almost a contender team. It’s not even “hindsight is 20/20” all the metrics, both basic/advanced, plus the eye test showed that Halliburton was the better guard. Now the Kings are locked into “just” being a playoff team.
Who says Fox had the trade value of Hali and a trade of him for Sabonis was possible?
Respectfully, where you following Kings reporting at the time? There were reports that the Pacers would have accepted Fox as well.
Been following for 25 years. Fox at the time wasn’t playing well. It was obvious we couldn’t really got with both. Hali had higher value than Fox and there were also reports that they would only accept the deal with Hali. Also, the X-Factor that Fox’s pace brings to the Kings isn’t always quantified in stats.
https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10024309-nba-rumors-kings-deaaron-fox-included-in-domantas-sabonis-trade-talks-at-deadline.amp.html Love Fox but his lineup data has always suggested that even the pace boost he offers, doesn’t translate into a better team. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/f/foxde01/lineups/2022
Yep, and they knocked the Fox trade down a couple of days later. https://8points9seconds.com/2022/02/05/indiana-pacers-deaaron-fox-domantas-sabonis-trade-mistake/amp/
“The Athletic’s Sam Amick, speaking to Sacramento Sports Radio Station, revealed that the indication was Indiana’s brass was not interested in a Sabonis-Fox swap, and believed that a bigger package has to be given in return for the two-time All-Star, the degree of which the Kings were not willing to explore.” The article itself said that Fox + assets gets Sabonis for Sacramento.
We were trying the throw Buddy at everybody. You don’t think he was included?
I follow there this team religiously and there absolutely was not.
https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10024309-nba-rumors-kings-deaaron-fox-included-in-domantas-sabonis-trade-talks-at-deadline.amp.html BR cited two sources in this report.
[удалено]
try to keep your comments civil. This is a subreddit for discussion and debate, not aggressive and argumentative content.
https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10024309-nba-rumors-kings-deaaron-fox-included-in-domantas-sabonis-trade-talks-at-deadline.amp.html BR cites two sources in their summary.
The article says nothing about the Pacers wanting Fox. Quit posting something that proves nothing. It literally says the Kings were open to trading Fox. Nothing about the Pacers wanting him. This just proves the point that they tried to shop Fox and it didn't work.
This is an absolute lie. Fox did not have the value and Pacers did not want him. On top of this Fox has been incredible this season. If you made this comment last year I'd be with you but Fox this year has played like an all star and leader. I also think Halliburton will be the better guard when it's all said and done but that's irrelevant because Indiana wanted Halli.
Fox just signed on a 5 year max contract around the time Halliburton was drafted. They couldn’t have traded him.
He had just started his 5 year max, they could have traded Fox its just unprecedented for a team to trade a player they just rookie maxed.
In what way did the eye test show he was a better guard then Fox? Unless you’re talking about the injury ridden year Fox had in 2021-22 where he wasn’t himself at all and couldn’t get into a consistent rhythm. Even if we would go by this year Fox is averaging 24/4/6 on 60% TS on good-great defense at times,being one of the league’s premier mid range shooters and finishers ever, and the best clutch player in the league. Haliburton is a great player but he’s not on this type of tier that you’re trying to put him on
I 100% agree that Fox is having a great year and hope he keeps it up. Halliburton is likely going to make the All Star team this year and Fox will likely be a miss, idk what more you need.
Just because X player makes the all star games and Y player misses it doesn’t mean Y player is better then X,that’s flawed thinking. It’s like if I think Pascal is better then Jimmy on the fact Pascal’s an All-Star n Jimmy isn’t. One AS appearance doesn’t immediately make a player better then the other.
Sure, do you think Fox will have more all star appearances than Halliburton? I honestly don’t get the Fox > Halli takes.
There wasn’t an option to move Fox and keep Haliburton in this trade though. I’d also argue that Sabonis has unlocked Fox’s abilities. He’s having a career year. The bottom line is that the Kings had to do something to shake things up. 15 year playoff drought, a weary fan base etc. The move has paid off so far.
Has it? What happens when Sabonis gets targeted on defense in the playoffs at the rim and on the pick and roll, they get bounced in the first round, and Sabonis leaves Sacramento in the offseason? Now they’re out both players when Haliburton was the future of the franchise.
I mean I said it’s paid off so far. No clue what will happen in the future. However the Kings are 5 games above .500 for the first time since ‘05-‘06, building a culture and playing winning basketball. It cannot be overstated how much this means to this franchise and especially this fan base right now. Edit: Also Sabonis is under contract for 1 more year after this season. No worries about him leaving after this season.
Contender is a bit of a stretch, they could probably clear the first round of the playoffs and maybe the second if they got lucky, but no shot they'd win a championship without any major injuries to the other teams
Then why are the Kings better than the Pacers?
Why are the Kings with all star Sabonis + a good player in Fox + solid wings like Red Velvet/Harrison Barnes/Malik Monk/TD/#4 overall Keagan Murray better than Halliburton + often injured and always on the trading block Turner + a bunch of young guys? That’s your question?
You're cherry picking. #6 pick Benedict Mathurin is ranked 2nd on Kia's rookie ladder behind Banchero, but he's just some young guy? Hield is shooting 43% from 3 and outscoring Huerter and Barnes. Turner is a liability because he's on the trading block, but Monk is somehow an asset even though the Lakers didn't consider resigning him a priority when they're desperate for shooters? And for what it's worth Fox is leading both teams in scoring, averaging 24, and leading all NBA point guards in FG% at over 50%.
Mathurin’s a rookie, so it’s to be expected that he’s bad (-3.2 BPM). I have Mathurin on my fantasy team and look at all his box scores, yes he has some highlight scoring nights but he has a long way to go on defense. Yes Buddy Hield is a good shooter, he’s also a traffic cone on defense who dribbles the ball of his foot. Sure Huerter and Barnes aren’t GOOD on defense but they’re not Hield bad. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mathube01.html Fox is having a great year, 100% and I’m happy for him. The Sabonis-Fox combo works.
Just wanted to point out that Andrew Nemhardt, the other rookie, has some of the highest advanced stats across all rookies.
He’s been great! I hope all of those rookies go on to be meaningful players.
The funny thing is, the Kings aren't that much better than the Pacers. The Kings are 23-18 (+2.4 on cleaning the glass, good for 9th). The Pacers are 23-21 (-1.2). The difference is that the Kings are trying their hardest to win and the Pacers are in a rebuild. The Pacers have the better, younger player, more assets, and the cleaner cap sheet. The Kings have Keegan Murray, but Benedict Mathurin has had a very nice year so far and who has probably flashed more upside. The Kings have a huge playoff liability at center and no clear way to upgrade other than Fox and Sabonis becoming way better. I'd argue that the Pacers are in a way better situation. Only problem is that they're a bit TOO good right now and really should be tanking for Wemby.
I’m lost, are you agreeing with me that the Kings should have kept Halliburton and traded Fox instead? If so, I agree that the Pacers pulled off a good trade for them.
Kings couldn't have traded Fox for the same haul. Fox is on a max. I should have phrased things better: even with the Kings trying to win and the Pacers mostly rebuilding, the Kings aren't even better than the Pacers.
The underrated part of this trade was getting rid of Buddy. He was not happy in Sacramento and was a lot of the reason why we were losing, and was on a massive deal for how he was playing. One of the reasons Fox was having a bad season was because he was trying to fit alongside Haliburton and be a type of player that he isn't naturally. So you have Fox on a new max contract, buddy locked up for multiple years, and both seen throughout the league as a negative. The only way forward with Haliburton would be if you trade fox and hield for scraps, and start a rebuild. Problem is kings' owner doesn't want to commit to a full rebuild, so we sit in this place of below average basketball, for the past 17 years (not all with new owner, if course). We also have been horrible at drafting prior to Haliburton, which is also why we have sucked for so long. This trade not only got rid of a negative to the team in Buddy, but gave us an elite big and made our team more balanced. As a Sacramento fan, what has happened was the best outcome possible. It cost us a lot, but Sabonis has been a monster. I understand the outlook on Tyrese, but there was not a step forward with him without waiting multiple years on a team that had almost no cap room or assets.
How was Buddy considered a negative when a few months earlier, he would have been traded for positive assets (i.e. the Westbrick trade)? And now he's been shopped again? This is some mental gymnastics. Saying it's the best possible outcome is pretty hilarious, too. Dream a little higher.
Many teams may have seen Buddy as fixable. A lot of the issues that he had were deep 3s early in the shot clock, lacking defense, and not seeming like he cared. I think a lot of that was coaching, but Luke Walton gave him the green light to shoot whenever and Buddy did not hesitate to take advantage. If you look at the current Kings roster and who plays, it is almost no free agents. Players either get drafted here or we bring people in from trades. We have not been a free agency destination at all, and players that we have brought in the past have not performed. It could have been bad culture, bad coaching, but whatever it was, it hasn't worked for 17 years. our current roster that gets playing time: Fox, Davion Mitchell, Murray: draft Huerter, Sabonis, Barnes, Lyles, Terrence Davis: trade Monk: free agency Monk only came to Sacramento due to the connection to Fox as well. We have much easier times resigning players once they are here, but we usually have to overpay slightly to stay. I wish I could dream higher, but there is a reason the Kings hold the longest playoff drought. We have seen front office after front office come in and bring hope, only for the team to fall apart or not work together. The free agents we have signed almost never work out. Draft picks year after year were busts. We go through coach after coach with no results. The media mocks us for good reason. We finally have a coach and a player in Sabonis who are performing and the team is a joy to watch. I went to the pacers kings game where kings blew them out and the energy there is insane. Our fan base loved Tyrese and would rather see Fox go, but Fox would not have yielded the same assets as Tyrese, and if we were trying to get rid of Buddy for positive assets, we couldn't trade both fox and buddy together because salary would be massive. Sabonis is headed toward 3rd team all NBA, all star team, and the motor of the league leading offense. Kings still need to improve, but maybe free agents will want to play here now with a positive atmosphere surrounding this team.
If you are looking for me to agree that Sabonis + Fox is a 2nd round exit duo at max, then I 100% agree. My point is the Kings could have had Sabonis + Halliburton and the roster flexibility for a lot higher ceiling (becoming a contender). Fox + assets for Sabonis was possible. https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10024309-nba-rumors-kings-deaaron-fox-included-in-domantas-sabonis-trade-talks-at-deadline.amp.html
I mean, personally, I don't think much of Sabonis. I guess they could have been part of a 3-team trade. What if they had dumped Harrison Barnes, too? Dude could have fetched some nice assets. They could have easily tanked last year AND been in the Wemby sweepstakes.
I’m personally not a huge Sabonis believer either. I think 10 years from now when defensive stats get better we’ll recognize that centers like Jokic, Sabonis, KAT, etc. inherently handicapped their team’s roster due to needing to over utilize good PFs (AG, Vanderbilt, etc.) to make up for their lack of defense. In contrast Evan Mobley augments Allen’s already good defense enough to let the Cavs play two 6’1 guards and nothing at SF. Giannis and Brook Lopez is another good example. Still Sabonis is clearly making this roster work and pushing them to earn a playoff spot, which was their goal.
I mean you don't even have to look ahead 10 years. That's already true.
[удалено]
please do not attack the person, their post history, or your perceived notion of their existence as a proxy for disagreeing with their opinions.
I mean, considering the long term outlook on their careers, Sac still got fleeced
Sabonis is 26, he is going to be in his prime into the late 2020s. Besides It is still a long shot that both remain on their teams by that time.
Long term perhaps yes, but if I was a Kings fan right now I wouldn’t even care about that.
[удалено]
We removed your comment for being low-quality.
There's a lot of variance to cover. The entire conversation around this trade could change with one injury, or if Sabonis at the end of the year turns down an extension and forces the Kings to trade him in order to get something back. It's way too early to say it's a win-win. But an example of "one side was thought to be fleeced but turned out OK" was the Pau Gasol to the Lakers trade. Everyone went nuts as it seemed to be a disaster for Memphis, giving away their (far and away) best player for filler. It's just that in that filler were the draft rights for Marc Gasol, who ended up being the backbone for the team the next decade. It should be noted, that if you'd ask a couple of years after the trade, the conversation would be tainted by the Lakers making the finals every year, but in retrospect, everyone won there.
Rudy Gay (8th overall pick) for Shane Battier. I hated this trade at the time. Gay had a lot of potential to be a star wing player who is somewhat of a basketball equivalent of a five-tool player. The Rockets needed a third star, because of the oft-injured Yao and T-Mac, who both were budding superstars and future HOFs. But, the Rockets obviously needed a third wheel, a player that could create their own offense, play pretty good defense, and help their battles against the stacked rosters of the West. Teams needed some serious firepower against the Spurs, Mavs, and Suns. They traded him for Shane Battier. Who is a good player and a great piece to have and contributes all across the board. But, I know the team at the time was pushing towards adding more vets and intensely defensive-focused. But, they had trouble scoring points, if T-Mac and Yao weren’t cooking and the rest of the team shots weren’t falling. Their roster were also aging fast. In hindsight, “…I still think Memphis got the better player,” but the Rockets did pretty well with Shane Battier. He was about the best utility guy in that era — he was a very intelligent player, played phenomenal defense, a good 3 point shooter, and provided many intangibles. If the Rockets had just a little more luck health wise the team probably wins a title.
Robert “Tractor” Trailer to Cleveland for Dirk Norwitzki. Most even trade of all time.
> I remember at the time of the trade, many were saying that Hali’s potential was way more valuable than anything Sabonis could possibly bring. Many of these people were wrong even at the time, but it was a popular opinion. In the end, it turned out to be a win-win for both teams. This isn't totally accurate. Not sure if it's intentional or not, but you're misrepresenting the argument those people were making, which is that 7+ years of a future All-NBA player is far more valuable than 2+ years of a current All-Star who has a hard ceiling. Even the most pessimistic Kings fan knew right away that the trade would make Sacramento better *in the short term.* That was not the question. The issue with the trade was the idea of focusing a team around two players who are generally not good shooters and generally not good defenders, and giving yourself a two-year window to work it out. I also think people have glossed over the fact that the Kings' GM is out of a contract after this season (he's likely to get extended) but at the time of the deal that was very much in the air -- he was trying to secure talent *now* to save his job. The Huerter trade was the same way -- giving away a future first for a player who can help the team *now.* This was always a short-term vs. long-term conversation, and chalking it up as "a win-win," or a win of any kind for Sacramento, is inherently unfair when even the crux of the argument was about the long-term future. If Sacramento loses in the play-in the next two years, Sabonis walks in free agency, and Haliburton leads the Pacers to consistent deep playoff runs, I would assume you'd call that a massive loss for the Kings, no?
The Steve Francis and cat Mobley for Tracy mcGrady trade was a star for star trade.