Kings 76er's fall out?

[Amit149]

First thing to consider here is that no one in the front office should be thinking: 'what if this goes wrong and we don't improve?', or, 'wait a minute, we need to be careful just in case Cousins leaves in free agency years from now'. Those types of questions and thoughts are not at the forefront of their decision making, nor should they be. In their mind they are making a move that is going to help this team get to where they want to go. It is easy to criticise them for this move, but they made a bold move to help this team, unfortunately it didn't work out as planned but you never expect to fail when you make a move - you expect to succeed.

Second thing to consider here is this 'rebuild' idea or 'assets'. This move was made to free up cap space to sign players they believed would make a difference and help them compete for a play off spot. If we had made the play offs we would have been sending the a draft pick in the range of #15-30 to Chicago. After that, if we continued to make the play offs, Philly wouldn't swap their draft pick for ours, and when we did come to owe them a draft pick it would have been in the range of #15-30. A lot of play off teams throw those mid to late first round picks at veteran players, or to do deals to create cap space to sign veteran free agents. So yes, we have lost a future first round pick that could hurt a potential rebuild. However, if rebuilding was on this team's mind we wouldn't have made this trade, and arguably, we would have potentially traded Cousins and Gay for draft picks and young players to develop.

That said, you are right that we could have signed players without doing this trade, but we would not have been able to construct the roster we did. Now ok it didn't work out and we didn't achieve what our front office aimed to achieve. However, if we did achieve what our front office aimed to achieve (ie play offs), we wouldn't be having this 'negative' conversation about this trade. Instead, we would be talking about this trade in a more positive manner and about what went right and wrong with our play off run, and what we can do this off season in order to go deeper into the play offs.

Was it a good deal in hindsight? Probably not. But at the same time, they took a risk and so far they have got away with it. And as long as we improve and get better, the draft pick we send to Philly may not even cross our minds if we end up being a play off team under Joerger.

FO should absolutely take into account what will happen if it won't work- thinking only about the present is how the Nets destroyed their future, weighing the risks should be part of any decision making.

Again what's bold in clearing cap space by giving up things when you could've just used the stretch provision and get a similar result? that's not a bold move it's an unnecessary move.
I can see your bigger point but in reality it didn't seem like a good trade in real time to me and it doesn't look good in hindsight (the protection on that pick considering when Cousins contract expires is just bad judgement).

But keep in mind that if you stretch a player, you still do have to pay them. Between JT and Landry, we rid ourselves of over $21M worth of contracts, and that's $21M that we would have had to pay out had we stretched them. Assuming we don't swap picks with Philly next year, Philly gave us $21M and the rights to two players currently in Europe for a first-round pick in 2019 that may or may not be any good and two players we didn't want anyway.

If you take Nate Silver's assessment of the value of a draft pick seriously (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-winning-the-nba-draft-lottery-really-worth/), then accounting for the jump in the cap, if the pick we send them is about 11 or higher, Philly probably overpaid. At any rate, we gambled on getting better. Let's hope we do, for the sake of all of us!

But 21 million won't count against the cap... of course we would need to pay his salary over the years but 21 million over 7 years (twice the length of the contract +1) is far better than giving up an unprotected 1st rounder- and I'm pretty sure Vivek would've taken that 3 million a year hit since we are still a team with low salary (25th in the league) and he doesn't talk like he comes from a place of trying to save money.

 

[bajaden]

While true, there is a huge element of luck involved. Talent is one thing. But judging character or someone's innate desire to succeed is something else entirely.

Despite what the scouts and experts believe, it's a crap shoot as to how well many of these players will develop. You just can't predict how money, guaranteed contracts, fame, etc. will affect a players desire to really push themselves to become the best players they can be. Nor can you know whether those same players will develop into a 'team' player versus a 'me' player that's been coddled and enabled by everyone in their life.

For example, no chance the Warriors or their scouts could have ever envisioned what Steph Curry has become, let alone predicted it. I'm no expert or scout, but I championed for Curry really hard going into that draft. I'd be lying if I said I saw any of this coming.

Same goes for Kobe Bryant. While lots of GM's and scouts thought he'd be a heckuva player -- nobody knew the drive the kid had to become one of the all-time greats.

Closer to home, the Kings drafted Isaiah Thomas with the #60 and final selection in the 2011 draft. Like these other teams, they simply got lucky in that he exceeded every expectation and developed into a damn good player. If the Kings were really that smart, they would have drafted him much sooner --- ahead of Jimmer for sure.

Talent really isn't that hard to evaluate. It's the intangibles and drive that's hard. And I'm not convinced that many front offices are all that better at it -- they just get lucky with it at times. Other than blue chip talents such as LeBron, Shaq, Patrick Ewing, etc that are always clear cut, no doubt #1 picks, the draft is very much a crap shoot IMO. I find it easier to pick out the players I'm sure won't cut it than the one's I'm certain that will.

Certainly there's an element of luck involved, but the trick is to make that element as small as possible. There's a reason that certain teams find success after success in the draft, and it has nothing to do with luck, it has to do with scouting. If you scout a player through highschool and college, you have pretty good idea of his intangibles. Look, Donte Greene was a very talented individual, but in highschool, and in college, the question was his work ethic. The game came easy for him, and in his case, that was good enough. He was not high on my draft list for that reason. The Kings decided to gamble on his talent, and lost. The biggest loser though was Greene.

Where the luck comes in is in a case like Andre Drummond. No one questioned his physical abilities, they questioned his desire. He floated through highschool and college. He put out minimum effort at times. So a lot of teams, including the Kings passed on him. Now those teams are kicking themselfs. But he could have just as easily been the next Donte Greene. However when you look at a player like Draymond Green, you don't have those issues. He has always been a hard worker and a talented player. The question was his size. Just about everyone on this forum that interested in the combine, looks at the height of every player first and foremost. But the truth is, for some players it doesn't matter. The trick is to figure out which player it is.

In last years draft I would have bet my life on Towns being not just a good player, but a great player. No luck involved! I watched him in highschool and his one year at Kentucky. The questions I had about him coming out of highschool he answered at Kentucky. I predicted, before the draft, that he would one day be the best center in the NBA. If he stays healthy. Now I can't do that about every player, but there are some players that are head and shoulders above the rest. Then there are the players that you love who turn out better than you thought. Cousins is one of those. I think Willie is going to surprise a lot of people. I liked Klay Thompson, but never in my wildest dreams did I think he would be this good. Ditto Lilard!

So yes, there is luck involved, but if you do your due diligence, you'll hit more than you miss. One thing that a lot of people don't pay attention to is fit. Putting a square peg in a round hole doesn't work. If you have a team that makes it living off of shooting and passing, then you don't draft a player that can't shoot or pass the ball. You don't assume that he'll learn. You try and draft players that have the basic fundamentals and look to have a good feel for the game. You can and should know a lot of this stuff before drafting a player, and if you do, you won't make many mistakes.

 

[Siranthony]

The team is better. But we either picked the wrong coach or kept the wrong player or both. Here is to hoping history (Cousins) doesn't repeat itself for the sixth year in a row. Really it is all on the line this year if we keep Cousins.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

But 21 million won't count against the cap... of course we would need to pay his salary over the years but 21 million over 7 years (twice the length of the contract +1) is far better than giving up an unprotected 1st rounder- and I'm pretty sure Vivek would've taken that 3 million a year hit since we are still a team with low salary (25th in the league) and he doesn't talk like he comes from a place of trying to save money.

Just because it's not on the cap doesn't mean it's not real money. It has to be paid. And if we want to talk about Vivek just making it rain with dollar bills, let's remember that reports suggested that the reason Karl didn't get fired at the All-Star break was that we didn't want to have to pay his salary for the rest of the year AND pay for an interim head coach.

Let's think of it this way: It's not legal to spend that much money, because the cash inclusion cap on trades this year is $3.4M per team (for the year, not just one transaction) - but if it were, would you pay $21M for Philadelphia's unprotected 2020 pick? I wouldn't.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Certainly there's an element of luck involved, but the trick is to make that element as small as possible. There's a reason that certain teams find success after success in the draft, and it has nothing to do with luck, it has to do with scouting. If you scout a player through highschool and college, you have pretty good idea of his intangibles. Look, Donte Greene was a very talented individual, but in highschool, and in college, the question was his work ethic. The game came easy for him, and in his case, that was good enough. He was not high on my draft list for that reason. The Kings decided to gamble on his talent, and lost. The biggest loser though was Greene.

Where the luck comes in is in a case like Andre Drummond. No one questioned his physical abilities, they questioned his desire. He floated through highschool and college. He put out minimum effort at times. So a lot of teams, including the Kings passed on him. Now those teams are kicking themselfs. But he could have just as easily been the next Donte Greene. However when you look at a player like Draymond Green, you don't have those issues. He has always been a hard worker and a talented player. The question was his size. Just about everyone on this forum that interested in the combine, looks at the height of every player first and foremost. But the truth is, for some players it doesn't matter. The trick is to figure out which player it is.

In last years draft I would have bet my life on Towns being not just a good player, but a great player. No luck involved! I watched him in highschool and his one year at Kentucky. The questions I had about him coming out of highschool he answered at Kentucky. I predicted, before the draft, that he would one day be the best center in the NBA. If he stays healthy. Now I can't do that about every player, but there are some players that are head and shoulders above the rest. Then there are the players that you love who turn out better than you thought. Cousins is one of those. I think Willie is going to surprise a lot of people. I liked Klay Thompson, but never in my wildest dreams did I think he would be this good. Ditto Lilard!

So yes, there is luck involved, but if you do your due diligence, you'll hit more than you miss. One thing that a lot of people don't pay attention to is fit. Putting a square peg in a round hole doesn't work. If you have a team that makes it living off of shooting and passing, then you don't draft a player that can't shoot or pass the ball. You don't assume that he'll learn. You try and draft players that have the basic fundamentals and look to have a good feel for the game. You can and should know a lot of this stuff before drafting a player, and if you do, you won't make many mistakes.

I don't disagree with most of what you said. But I still don't credit these scouts and teams as being as smart as you do. You can scout a player from AAU all the way up. You still don't know how that player will react once he gets a taste of $$ and fame. Many guys, even those that showed a lot of drive and hunger at the lower levels, simply become satisfied. Some of them are still really good players --- but they lack the drive to be Kobe or MJ great. Again, that's the luck part. No matter how good your scouting dept. is, you can't always predict that. Your Drummond example is the reverse of that and a really good one.

Sometimes the luck just comes with the draft position you happen to have. If the Warriors held the #1 pick in 2009, it's doubtful they take Curry over Griffin. But they fell into him at #7 and ended up with not only the best player in hindsight, but a transcendent player with a Kobe/MJ level of drive to be great. Conversely the Clips help #1 and had to take Griffin by virtue of draft position, known talent to that point, and need. Had they been #7 instead, perhaps they end up with Curry and look like geniuses. That's the luck part.

As for Towns, he falls into that blue chip category I mentioned earlier. You're right, sans injuries, those are generally the "No luck involved" types of picks. But once you get beyond the top couple picks, it's far more a crap shoot for the reasons I outlined.

I'm not saying that early scouting is pointless or has no merit at all. Of course you want to garner as much info on these guys as you possibly can. I'm just saying that what you think you know of someone before they become a pro and get their first paycheck can change drastically and you really have no way to predict it. But, to your point, I agree that you want to minimize the risk as much as possible and drafting someone that showed a ton of drive and ambition to improve in HS and college versus someone like Greene that didn't will generally reap more rewards over time.

Sometimes it's easier (and luckier) drafting later in the 1st round and into the 2nd round because many of the riskier players get taken ahead of you based upon their overwhelming size, talent and skill whereas the kids with heavy chips on their shoulders fall right into your lap. If those same GM's that eventually took them were drafting higher, they likely would have fallen into the same trap the other teams did.

 

[Glenn]

Ha Ha, I'm sorry Glenn, my mistake and this is what I get for not going back and reading what I wrote. I mean't to write, and I'm not pointing at you. Sorry! I tried to make sure that you knew I wasn't personally attacking you, and I blew it.

Some things seemingly come blasting from nowhere. Yikes. Old age is a beee-atch!!!!

You probably won't be surprised I deleted a lot of my response because after I wrote them, they didn't make sense just as your response was puzzling. Best to save words AND friendships.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

One last thing ..... let's not forget that San Antonio -- who is often lauded for their draft acumen -- landed the #1 pick twice within 10 years which largely determined their success the past 25 years. Without Robinson and/or Duncan, they weren't winning 50+ games most every year, along with 5 championships. And because of their good fortune, they found themselves drafting in the late 20's most every year which made them have to take a different approach. They could afford to take fliers on guys like Ginobili and Tony Parker and continue to do the same ever since. We'll see how shrewd they are once that dynasty is finally all dried up.

I remember Geoff Petrie being pretty good at finding diamonds in the rough with his late draft picks too -- except that the Kings didn't have a long term, injury free star like Duncan to keep them afloat while he continued to look like a genius drafting complimentary gems with late round picks.

 

[randymoss1881]

Don't like the latter part, but when you say lose Cousins, I think we can assume that we won't just lose him with nothing in return. It's likely we'll receive a player or two, and probably a draft pick or two, which would make up for the pick we lose to Philly. This season is make or break for the Cousins era in my opinion. Whether it's Cousins fault or not, if your not looking like a team on the rise after this season, I think you have to consider trading Cousins, for fear of his walking at seasons end the following year. Problem is, the other teams know your between a rock and a hard place, and the squeeze is on. Don't want it to come to that, so I'm hopeful for a huge improvement this coming season.

If DMC is traded next off season (which I think would be the time it happened if it goes wrong) Lakers will give us one of Russell or Simmons/Ingram.

 

[bajaden]

One last thing ..... let's not forget that San Antonio -- who is often lauded for their draft acumen -- landed the #1 pick twice within 10 years which largely determined their success the past 25 years. Without Robinson and/or Duncan, they weren't winning 50+ games most every year, along with 5 championships. And because of their good fortune, they found themselves drafting in the late 20's most every year which made them have to take a different approach. They could afford to take fliers on guys like Ginobili and Tony Parker and continue to do the same ever since. We'll see how shrewd they are once that dynasty is finally all dried up.

I remember Geoff Petrie being pretty good at finding diamonds in the rough with his late draft picks too -- except that the Kings didn't have a long term, injury free star like Duncan to keep them afloat while he continued to look like a genius drafting complimentary gems with late round picks.

Actually the Kings have had, for the most part, and injury free star like Duncan, but they haven't added a Parker or a Ginobili have they. His name is Cousins. And that is precisely what I'm talking about. You can believe what you want, but the success that the Spurs have had, other than Duncan, has nothing to do with luck. They know the type of player their looking for. There's a method to what they do. You can't chalk all that up to luck.

And, if you talk to a players coach, and the trainers, you know who is going to work their butt off and whose not. As I said, Donte Greene had red flags about his work ethic. By the same token, JT was known to be a dedicated hard worker. And when he was drafted by the Kings, he continued to work hard. Most players I knew personally were very hard workers. Yes, they wanted to make money, but they also wanted to be great. They wanted to win. Unfortunately, some had limited abilities. But they did become as good as they could be.

What you can't predict is injuries, or, in some cases, whether a player that can't shoot, will ever shoot the ball well. There are little clues, like a player shoots free throws well. That usually translates into becoming at least a decent shooter. But Tyreke Evans was a good free throw shooter, who hasn't translated. Sometimes a player is misused in college. In some cases forced to play out of position. Matt Barnes played center at Del Campo. How did that prepare him to play SF or SG in college or the NBA. Gerald Wallace played center in college. Corliss Williamson played center in college, and eventually ended up playing SF in the NBA.

Lets take a ride down memory lane. I sat and watched the Kings, who needed a center, draft Joe Kleine. Yes, even then I was sitting there with my little draft board. And on my board, I had Karl Malone circled. In a later draft, I watched the Kings draft Kenny Smith, and I had Kevin Johnson circled on my board. Was I wrong? Would the fortunes of the Kings have dramatically changed if they had drafted the players that I wanted, and who by the way were sitting there available? I'm not a genius! An idiot could have figured out who to draft. But they needed a center. Why Kenny Smith, because he went to North Carolina, who had just won the NCAA championship. Somehow they missed on Kevin Johnson, a Sacramento native, who had played up interstate 80 at Cal. Kenny wasn't a bad player, but he wasn't Kevin Johnson.

Then there was the time they had the first pick in the draft. Of course it was a weak draft. I thought the best player on the board was Sean Elliot. But once again, the Kings needed a center, and they drafted Pervis Ellison. Who promptly injured his foot. This isn't rocket science. If the Kings would have had a smart GM from the get go, we would be looking at an entirely different team. But we didn't. Hopefully we do now.

 

[bajaden]

If DMC is traded next off season (which I think would be the time it happened if it goes wrong) Lakers will give us one of Russell or Simmons/Ingram.

One isn't going to do it for me. Not even close!

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Lets take a ride down memory lane. I sat and watched the Kings, who needed a center, draft Joe Kleine. Yes, even then I was sitting there with my little draft board. And on my board, I had Karl Malone circled. In a later draft, I watched the Kings draft Kenny Smith, and I had Kevin Johnson circled on my board. Was I wrong? Would the fortunes of the Kings have dramatically changed if they had drafted the players that I wanted, and who by the way were sitting there available? I'm not a genius! An idiot could have figured out who to draft. But they needed a center. Why Kenny Smith, because he went to North Carolina, who had just won the NCAA championship. Somehow they missed on Kevin Johnson, a Sacramento native, who had played up interstate 80 at Cal. Kenny wasn't a bad player, but he wasn't Kevin Johnson.

Then there was the time they had the first pick in the draft. Of course it was a weak draft. I thought the best player on the board was Sean Elliot. But once again, the Kings needed a center, and they drafted Pervis Ellison. Who promptly injured his foot. This isn't rocket science. If the Kings would have had a smart GM from the get go, we would be looking at an entirely different team. But we didn't. Hopefully we do now.

Man, why did you have to go down this memory lane? I've tried so hard to forget all this .....

 

[Amit149]

Just because it's not on the cap doesn't mean it's not real money. It has to be paid. And if we want to talk about Vivek just making it rain with dollar bills, let's remember that reports suggested that the reason Karl didn't get fired at the All-Star break was that we didn't want to have to pay his salary for the rest of the year AND pay for an interim head coach.

Let's think of it this way: It's not legal to spend that much money, because the cash inclusion cap on trades this year is $3.4M per team (for the year, not just one transaction) - but if it were, would you pay $21M for Philadelphia's unprotected 2020 pick? I wouldn't.

This trade hasn't cost the 76ers a dime since they were still under the cap floor after they made it- meaning the amount of money they payed their players haven't changed.

I doubt the issue was paying an interim coach- if he wanted Karl so bad and didn't want to pay money he was able to just promote an assistant.
It's 3 million a year over a 7 years period it's not a small amount but you can also say we have the 8th pick in the draft this year, if we won't sign the guy we pick we can save about 15 million over the next 4 years! that shouldn't be your consideration.
Like I said even taking this hit into account we would be below average salary as a team and if teams would really operate like you say they would- than cap would be the most important thing in the NBA and no one would sniff the luxury tax.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

This trade hasn't cost the 76ers a dime since they were still under the cap floor after they made it- meaning the amount of money they payed their players haven't changed.

It's true that the Sixers essentially shuffled dead money to pay (at least partially) for Thompson and Landry because of the salary floor. Landry is still a going concern for them next year, but if they were again planning to be $6.5M under the salary floor then it looks like they got the pick "for free". But that's not the point. Did the Sixers "win" the trade from their point of view? Yes, because they essentially spent confiscated money (and the draft rights to two players, don't forget) to buy a draft pick and two swap options (at least one of which didn't pan out).

But the question for us is whether WE won the trade. In this trade we had $21M (and the draft rights to two players) put into our pockets at the cost of one draft pick and maybe a swap (though the swap would seem unlikely). The question basically comes down to what's better to have, $21M or a draft pick? That really comes down to this: if you were given the option to give $21M to Philly to get our 2019 pick back, would you do it? If yes, we lost the trade in your eyes. But if no...

It's 3 million a year over a 7 years period it's not a small amount but you can also say we have the 8th pick in the draft this year, if we won't sign the guy we pick we can save about 15 million over the next 4 years! that shouldn't be your consideration.
Like I said even taking this hit into account we would be below average salary as a team and if teams would really operate like you say they would- than cap would be the most important thing in the NBA and no one would sniff the luxury tax.

I love how you're so cavalier with other people's money. "Oh, it's only $21M for nothing in return! Just eat it! Don't try to find another way to save it!"

I'm also not sure why you're saying that the stretched money from JT and Landry would have been over 7 years. Unless I missed something, they only had two years left on their contracts at the time, so they would have been stretched over 5 years, not 7. So that's $4M+ a year. AND that $4M+ would go against the salary cap. This would not have been an "amnesty provision" stretch. We would have doomed ourselves to $4M+ of less cap space for five years.

 

[Section 101]

It's true that the Sixers essentially shuffled dead money to pay (at least partially) for Thompson and Landry because of the salary floor. Landry is still a going concern for them next year, but if they were again planning to be $6.5M under the salary floor then it looks like they got the pick "for free". But that's not the point. Did the Sixers "win" the trade from their point of view? Yes, because they essentially spent confiscated money (and the draft rights to two players, don't forget) to buy a draft pick and two swap options (at least one of which didn't pan out).

But the question for us is whether WE won the trade. In this trade we had $21M (and the draft rights to two players) put into our pockets at the cost of one draft pick and maybe a swap (though the swap would seem unlikely). The question basically comes down to what's better to have, $21M or a draft pick? That really comes down to this: if you were given the option to give $21M to Philly to get our 2019 pick back, would you do it? If yes, we lost the trade in your eyes. But if no...



I love how you're so cavalier with other people's money. "Oh, it's only $21M for nothing in return! Just eat it! Don't try to find another way to save it!"

I'm also not sure why you're saying that the stretched money from JT and Landry would have been over 7 years. Unless I missed something, they only had two years left on their contracts at the time, so they would have been stretched over 5 years, not 7. So that's $4M+ a year. AND that $4M+ would go against the salary cap. This would not have been an "amnesty provision" stretch. We would have doomed ourselves to $4M+ of less cap space for five years.

this is what people don't understand about the stretch provision. You still have to pay them and they still count against the cap. Better to just get it over with their current contract length than pain yourself for more years at a small cap number.

 

[Amit149]

It's true that the Sixers essentially shuffled dead money to pay (at least partially) for Thompson and Landry because of the salary floor. Landry is still a going concern for them next year, but if they were again planning to be $6.5M under the salary floor then it looks like they got the pick "for free". But that's not the point. Did the Sixers "win" the trade from their point of view? Yes, because they essentially spent confiscated money (and the draft rights to two players, don't forget) to buy a draft pick and two swap options (at least one of which didn't pan out).

But the question for us is whether WE won the trade. In this trade we had $21M (and the draft rights to two players) put into our pockets at the cost of one draft pick and maybe a swap (though the swap would seem unlikely). The question basically comes down to what's better to have, $21M or a draft pick? That really comes down to this: if you were given the option to give $21M to Philly to get our 2019 pick back, would you do it? If yes, we lost the trade in your eyes. But if no...



I love how you're so cavalier with other people's money. "Oh, it's only $21M for nothing in return! Just eat it! Don't try to find another way to save it!"

I'm also not sure why you're saying that the stretched money from JT and Landry would have been over 7 years. Unless I missed something, they only had two years left on their contracts at the time, so they would have been stretched over 5 years, not 7. So that's $4M+ a year. AND that $4M+ would go against the salary cap. This would not have been an "amnesty provision" stretch. We would have doomed ourselves to $4M+ of less cap space for five years.

I didn't talk about stretching JT just Landry, so it's 13 million- because you are so accurate I assumed he had a 3 year contract of 21 million but in reality it's just 13 million. Now that 13 million is divided for 5 years- 2.6 a year.

And I'm not cavalier with other people's money- it's a giant business and that's part of it.
Going by your line of thinking we shouldn't have signed everybody after the trade... we did spend the money we cleared and than some on signings after all.
If this year while the cap jumps- would you not be disappointed if we won't spend the available capspace because of financial reasons?
If we'll sell our first round pick for money wouldn't you be outraged?
how is that different?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Going by your line of thinking we shouldn't have signed everybody after the trade... we did spend the money we cleared and than some on signings after all.

That's not my line of thinking at all. We spent money on players we wanted - which is exactly what we ought to spend money on. Landry and Thompson were players we did not want, but we were obligated to pay. We found a way out of $21M worth of obligated payments for stuff we didn't want, then turned around and spent our "windfall" on stuff we did want. Maybe not wisely in the end (Belinelli isn't looking so hot), but that's beside my point.

If this year while the cap jumps- would you not be disappointed if we won't spend the available capspace because of financial reasons?

Sure, I'd be disappointed. But I don't get how that's relevant what I've been saying. I'm pointing out that we got rid of a large financial obligation that did us no good at all (at the cost of a draft pick, which I do acknowledge) in order that we could spend that money on other things. I recognize that there is a tradeoff here. You seem to think that we would have been better off paying that financial obligation, taking a several year salary cap hit, and keeping our draft pick. That's not an unreasonable position, it's really not. But I'm on the other side. I don't think that spending a draft pick in order to get $21M in our pockets and some cap space is unreasonable either.

If we'll sell our first round pick for money wouldn't you be outraged? how is that different?

Effectively we did sell a first round pick for money - our 2019 for $21M. It's not different. I am not outraged.

 

[peacelate]

The point of the trade wasn't to save money. It was to free up space so we could sign free agents.

If the Kings went Maloof and traded draft picks just so they could avoid having another guaranteed contract, that would be bad.

 

[Amit149]

Sure, I'd be disappointed. But I don't get how that's relevant what I've been saying. I'm pointing out that we got rid of a large financial obligation that did us no good at all (at the cost of a draft pick, which I do acknowledge) in order that we could spend that money on other things. I recognize that there is a tradeoff here.

But the point is we could've still do most of it without making the trade, and that changes the tradeoff dramatically.
Now you can say it's a financial order from Vivek- but there is no report or indication of that, what we do have are reports saying is that our FO wasn't aware stretching Landry was a possibility.

Effectively we did sell a first round pick for money - our 2019 for $21M. It's not different. I am not outraged.

Than you are a very calm fan

I don't think asking the owner to go to the cap and a little more (and again it is a little since I'm talking about only stretching JT) is unreasonable, asking an owner to go deep into the luxury tax might be unreasonable, but asking that seems fine to me (and in any case there is no indication Vivek "went Maloof" like some say).

And it's not really 21 million- JT was traded to the Warriors so it's not far fetched to claim some team would have taken him for free or a small price and we also traded Nik Stauskas, while I'm far from impressed from him he still had positive value when we traded him (the 8th pick coming of his rookie season).

In any case I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

 

[Bricklayer]

The point of the trade wasn't to save money. It was to free up space so we could sign free agents.

If the Kings went Maloof and traded draft picks just so they could avoid having another guaranteed contract, that would be bad.

Also roster slots

and an abrupt change in team culture.

It was the right trade. Tired of people whining about it. That was a ballsy man's trade. If a woman made it, it would have been a ballsy (ovarysy?) woman's trade. Either way, there was a purpose and a goal in mind, and the goal was to shake things up and abruptly turn a corner while signalling that there was a new sheriff. And it was a trade in which the new sheriff demonstrated complete confidence in his ability to create a winning future, thus rendering what he gave up largely irrelevant. The dude practically shouted "I'm here to make the Kings great again!"

 

[bajaden]

Man, why did you have to go down this memory lane? I've tried so hard to forget all this .....

Sorry amigo!

 

[DerekJ]

It was a failed trade, but it's also easy to say that in retrospect after our disaster season last year.

Hopefully Vlade looks at it as a sunk cost and used it as a good learning lesson on the value of draft picks going forward.

 

[Blob]

The best thing about that trade was Vlade realizing Nik Stauskas cannot play.... so cut your losses and don't hold out false hope. Too weak, physically and mentally. Maybe he becomes a player but it is a 30/70 proposition against. His season with 76ers with abundance of playing time was pretty pathetic. So then you look at the cost the Kings paid to unload two bad contracts and a fair (not good) prospect. It was excessive.

One swap right down and one to go, and with the #1 pick and new FO in Philly and mandate from league office to compete instead of roll over and playing in the weak conference, the 76ers are primed to make a big jump if they spend and draft wisely. I think they should draft Ingram. If they draft Simmons, one of their three bigs will have to go, Okafor or Noel most likely, to bring in a player who can space the floor.

So it is realistic to think if the 76ers make solid moves they can be a 35-40 win team next season. I think the Kings are in the same boat, pending forthcoming moves. The gap is closing and the swap becomes more of a possibility. The possibility of the 2019 pick being conveyed unprotected makes you question, what did we get for that? Let's see, cap space we spent on a mediocre back-up with no touch around the basket (Koufos), a bricklayer with zero athleticism, defensive skill or pride (Marco), and a volatile PG who probably won't be resigned (Rondo).

In what fantastical realm is this a good trade?! Now in retrospect I think the gamble was worth it because (1) Nik can't play (2) the two deadweight contracts were sunk cost that constrained flexibility, and (3) the free and clear cap space allowed Vlade to maneuver. But the gamble did not pay off because the money was squandered, the season was a joke, and the future obligations are looming. The gamble backfired, with a pending cost yet to be determined. It was not a good trade. It was a decent gamble, like hitting on 14 in blackjack and getting a 10. This is nothing to applaud.

On a positive note, there is still chance for redemption if Marco or Koufos have bounce back years in context of winning season (or traded for something decent), and the money on Rondo is applied more prudently, for example to secure a starting SG like Allen Crabbe. The book on this trade is not closed, but as it stands it is a loser.

 

[gunks]

Really don't get why everyone thinks we got killed in this trade. And by everyone, I'm talking media head types, not just naysayers on this board.

Nik is bad. Never should have drafted him, but that one's on The Chief Irritant.

I liked JT. But our erstwhile starting PF couldn't even stick to a team as a deep bench option. Dude was imminently replaceable.

Landry is overpriced garbage. Just getting rid of him was a coup.

Everyone gets mad about the pick swap. Really? Y'all are mad about the infinitesimally small chance that a team that was built BY DESIGN to be historically awful is going to be picking BEHIND us in the draft? Poppycock, I say!

Vlade made space to make moves. He signed and went after the right kind of players (defensive big, defensive wing, pass 1st pg, shooter).... And the jury is still out on Belli and KK as far as I'm concerned. I can see those guys (along with everyone else on the team) having a bounce back season under Joerger. Karl was awful.

This is all coming from a guy who HATED the trade initially.

If a pick swap with a team who probably wouldn't even get wins in the D-league is Vlade's biggest mistake, I'd say he's off to a good start as GM.

Edit: maybe I shoulda read the article first haha. Giving up an unprotected 1st in 2019 does kinda suck. But if we're still high lotto in 2019 than we have bigger problems.....

Gutsy trade. I still like it. We should be making deep playoffs runs by then. If not..... Well, we can just revisit this in '19.

 

[Blob]

Also roster slots

and an abrupt change in team culture.

It was the right trade. Tired of people whining about it. That was a ballsy man's trade. If a woman made it, it would have been a ballsy (ovarysy?) woman's trade. Either way, there was a purpose and a goal in mind, and the goal was to shake things up and abruptly turn a corner while signalling that there was a new sheriff. And it was a trade in which the new sheriff demonstrated complete confidence in his ability to create a winning future, thus rendering what he gave up largely irrelevant. The dude practically shouted "I'm here to make the Kings great again!"

A ballsy man's trade?! LOL. It was a decent gamble and borderline desperation move to remake the roster. Hinkie squeezed Vlade for every last asset he could and Vlade conceded. That's not ballsy, that's caving. If I recall the 76ers were below the floor and did not want to improve their team, so the cost of taking on JT and Landry was irrelevant to them. They got a FREE prospect in Nik, plus two swap rights, plus a future #1 rounder for absorbing contracts into cap space that needed to be filled! That's called turning the screws on a novice GM. Again, I am not here to bash Vlade because it was a decent gamble worth taking given dire straits, but I think you are giving him too much credit.

 

[kingsboi]

Also roster slots

and an abrupt change in team culture.

It was the right trade. Tired of people whining about it. That was a ballsy man's trade. If a woman made it, it would have been a ballsy (ovarysy?) woman's trade. Either way, there was a purpose and a goal in mind, and the goal was to shake things up and abruptly turn a corner while signalling that there was a new sheriff. And it was a trade in which the new sheriff demonstrated complete confidence in his ability to create a winning future, thus rendering what he gave up largely irrelevant. The dude practically shouted "I'm here to make the Kings great again!"

Phase two begins June 23rd

 

[Bricklayer]

A ballsy man's trade?! LOL. It was a decent gamble and borderline desperation move to remake the roster. Hinkie squeezed Vlade for every last asset he could and Vlade conceded. That's not ballsy, that's caving. If I recall the 76ers were below the floor and did not want to improve their team, so the cost of taking on JT and Landry was irrelevant to them. They got a FREE prospect in Nik, plus two swap rights, plus a future #1 rounder for absorbing contracts into cap space that needed to be filled! That's called turning the screws on a novice GM. Again, I am not here to bash Vlade because it was a decent gamble worth taking given dire straits, but I think you are giving him too much credit.

Hinkie didn't squeeze him for crap. Vlade sold him a bill of goods. Passed him a bag of lemons and convinced him it was gold.

Hinkie got out of it: a single 2019 pick. The rest of it was all garbage and sleight of hand. Pick swaps that would never be swapped. A pile of junk we were specifically trying to unload. Its like saying you got one over on the paper hat guy by asking for and receiving napkins and ketchup packets to go with your cheeseburger.

 

[upinsmoke]

Hinkie didn't squeeze him for poopoo. Vlade sold him a bill of goods. Passed him a bag of lemons and convinced him it was gold.

Hinkie got out of it: a single 2019 pick. The rest of it was all garbage and sleight of hand. Pick swaps that would never be swapped. A pile of junk we were specifically trying to unload. Its like saying you got one over on the paper hat guy by asking for and receiving napkins and ketchup packets to go with your cheeseburger.

I like Vlade as much as the next guy/gal around here but cmon man.

 

[peacelate]

A ballsy man's trade?! LOL. It was a decent gamble and borderline desperation move to remake the roster. Hinkie squeezed Vlade for every last asset he could and Vlade conceded. That's not ballsy, that's caving. If I recall the 76ers were below the floor and did not want to improve their team, so the cost of taking on JT and Landry was irrelevant to them. They got a FREE prospect in Nik, plus two swap rights, plus a future #1 rounder for absorbing contracts into cap space that needed to be filled! That's called turning the screws on a novice GM. Again, I am not here to bash Vlade because it was a decent gamble worth taking given dire straits, but I think you are giving him too much credit.

How did Hinkie squeeze Vlade. Didn't Hinke just get fired from his position from all the brilliant moves he made? I wish he was our GM so we could trade every asset we had for lottery balls.

The unprotected pick doesn't matter as much as keeping DMC in a Kings uniform.

The Kings also got 2 2nd round draft picks from that trade.

 

[biltalent]

I like Vlade as much as the next guy/gal around here but cmon man.

No, Brick is right. The chance of us jumping the 76ers in the lottery have alsways been so minimal that it is absurd how much attention it got. The price was always meant to be: Sac 2018 protected or 2019 unprotected pick for 15 mil cap space, two 2nd round picks and a chance to rebuild around Vlades handpicked guys. You can thank George Karl that we were so bad this year that it is now unprotected in 2019 and not protrcted in 2018.

 

[Tetsujin]

We do place a lot of value on draft picks that are worthwhile. That's why we are attempting to build around Cousins. Cousins was the best draft pick this franchise has ever had. That's why we were willing to get rid of Nik (that pick was not worthwhile).

Second best.

Our best ever draft pick was Quincy Douby.