Now that we know the draft order, who do we draft? (New thread)

[twslam07]

The net result of your trade (other than adding Turner, Crabbe, Aminu, Leonard and Harkless - none of whom I want at all) is moving up from #10 to #7 and getting #20.

Thanks for correcting your phrasing! It sounded like you were trying to misrepresent the deal by acting like we were just getting a mid to late 1st rounder.

Well, it's a stretch to say we'd "have" Bogdanovic if there's only $4.1 million in caproom left to sign him with. But even if that's the case, the issue would be that it makes it harder to complete any trades when you're at the salary cap limit. A mismatched roster with one rookie point guard with no backup and four shooting guards is one that needs flexibility to trade pieces and this would damage that. It also means having to cut a player next season (likely meaning dead cap for years) just to be able to sign the rookie drafted in 2018. Rebuilding teams should use caproom to absorb bad contracts in exchange for assets but blowing it all in one fell swoop for #15 and #20 in a draft that isn't particularly deep and hamstringing the team for three years seems excessive to say the least.

It's a matter of preference I suppose. We might not be getting enough back. I tend to swing a little more towards the opposing team to not be so "homerish" as many fans appear to be when making trade proposals. But the fact stands that limited cap space would not affect us all that much at this stage in the rebuild. Teams are over the cap all of the time in the NBA and they manage to pull off deal after deal after deal. This is getting blown out of proportion in my opinion.

Again, it's to my understanding that the roster has been extended to 17 with two of them having to remain in the D league. #5, #7, #20, #34, I. Cousins, Temple, Hield, Bogdanovic, Richardson, Crabbe, Turner, Harkless, Aminu, Labissiere, Cauley-Stein, Papagiannis, & Leonard. That's 17 right there.

I wouldn't say this draft "isn't particularly deep." I think there is solid talent throughout this draft, but this can be said by either side in an attempt to make their argument look stronger.

To me this makes it much worse. At least Portland has a core to build around. The Kings would be using up all of their caproom, making it harder to make deals going forward, and locking themselves into a roster and generally getting into a tough position without even having a clear direction going forward.

It would be more difficult, but let's not pretend like it's that much more difficult. Again, teams make deals all the time while being over the cap.

The odds are that we are going to be at the bottom for a few more years and that we won't be in a position to lure or sign anyone of significance. What is the point of having cap space if we're not going to be able to sign anyone who will help our core when it comes time to actually be competitive?

The fear or having little to no cap space for the next few years is bizarre. You cite a few reasons why you're so worried about not having cap flexiblity....

1. Locking them into a roster - false, cap flexibility will return in 3 years when our young guys start to develop and become actual NBA players. We can decide then who will we be resigning are there any FAs that make sense to go after (and that would hopefully be interested in our team because the core guys are starting to look promising). And again, we can always trade. So not only are we not "locked into a roster" in the short term we're not "locked into a roster" in the long term
2. Getting into a tough position - I don't even really know what you mean by this as it's very vague, but I don't see anything tough about adding more youth to the roster and sitting on them for a couple of years while they develop.
3. Not having a clear direction going forward - why is this an issue? Why do we need to know what our direction is at the beginning of a rebuild? What we should be doing is developing our players to the best of our abilities and see where the cream rises to the crop. From there, you can start to see a core forming, who the team should be built around, etc. This is a nonissue at this point in time

 

[twslam07]

I saw a trade proposal pop-up on a neutral NBA forum and it seemed like the opposing team's fans were in favor of the deal. What would you do?

POR Gets: #10 & Koufos
SAC Gets: #15, #20, #26, & Leonard

I'd probably only do it if Fultz, Jackson, Ball, Fox, Isaac, Tatum, Smith, Ntilikina, & Monk were off the board. I'm not too excited with taking Markannen/Collins. It also sounds like the Portland fans would prefer to do that deal if guys like Markannen/Collins were left so it sounds like the criteria would match up with my preference quite well.

 

[kingdivac]

I agree, I don't really understand the hype surrounding Tatum.. I would rather take DSJ at 5 if Fox or Jackson aren't there.

Absolutely - I wouldn't be unhappy if they straight up took Smith first....although I think if all players are there I'd want Jackson first - a very smooth player who plays defense well too.

 

[kingdivac]

The Kings should not pass on Lonzo Ball at 5, if they are lucky enough for him to fall there. In fact, if for some reason he is available at three, the Kings should try very hard to trade up with Philly and take him.

I asked this earlier.....I would not mind the Kings getting Ball despite all the hoopla....it will settle - hopefully. As an aside, Ball would be great for ticket sales for whichever team selects him.

 

[whozit]

I saw a trade proposal pop-up on a neutral NBA forum and it seemed like the opposing team's fans were in favor of the deal. What would you do?

POR Gets: #10 & Koufos
SAC Gets: #15, #20, #26, & Leonard

I'd probably only do it if Fultz, Jackson, Ball, Fox, Isaac, Tatum, Smith, Ntilikina, & Monk were off the board. I'm not too excited with taking Markannen/Collins. It also sounds like the Portland fans would prefer to do that deal if guys like Markannen/Collins were left so it sounds like the criteria would match up with my preference quite well.

That is a deal I would most likely willing to do, if the player I wanted at 10 wasn't there. Still leaves cap room to acquire future assets.

 

[VF21]

Not sure if its been discussed but what if Lonzo Ball happens to free fall because of his dad, do we pass him up at 5 because we dont want that type of spotlight anymore or do you not let a talent like ball slip past 5?

Take a few minutes and read the thread. There has been some discussion of that very thing.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I saw a trade proposal pop-up on a neutral NBA forum and it seemed like the opposing team's fans were in favor of the deal. What would you do?

POR Gets: #10 & Koufos
SAC Gets: #15, #20, #26, & Leonard

I'd probably only do it if Fultz, Jackson, Ball, Fox, Isaac, Tatum, Smith, Ntilikina, & Monk were off the board. I'm not too excited with taking Markannen/Collins. It also sounds like the Portland fans would prefer to do that deal if guys like Markannen/Collins were left so it sounds like the criteria would match up with my preference quite well.

Well, I think we get decent value here, so unless there's somebody there at #10 that knocks my socks off we could get some very nice players. The problem is that we hit a pretty severe roster crunch if we're going to have four first round picks (and forget about our #34, I mean we'd throw it in to make this deal, we might even want to).

Just look at the roster with this trade, assuming we sign Bogdanovic:
Galloway
Hield/Bogdanovich
Richardson/Temple
Labissiere/Leonard
Cauley-Stein/Papagiannis

Add four first-round picks, and that makes 13 players already, and that's assuming we dump Afflalo (safe bet) and Tolliver (less safe bet) and don't want to match an offer sheet for McLemore. There's room for two more players. Now, maybe we grab a Euro guy like Kurucs and stash him for a while, but adding two more draft picks this year really hurts our flexibility and makes us super super super young.

I get why Portland does this, but I'm not sure it's a great idea for us.

 

[whozit]

Thanks for correcting your phrasing! It sounded like you were trying to misrepresent the deal by acting like we were just getting a mid to late 1st rounder.



It's a matter of preference I suppose. We might not be getting enough back. I tend to swing a little more towards the opposing team to not be so "homerish" as many fans appear to be when making trade proposals. But the fact stands that limited cap space would not affect us all that much at this stage in the rebuild. Teams are over the cap all of the time in the NBA and they manage to pull off deal after deal after deal. This is getting blown out of proportion in my opinion.

Again, it's to my understanding that the roster has been extended to 17 with two of them having to remain in the D league. #5, #7, #20, #34, I. Cousins, Temple, Hield, Bogdanovic, Richardson, Crabbe, Turner, Harkless, Aminu, Labissiere, Cauley-Stein, Papagiannis, & Leonard. That's 17 right there.

I wouldn't say this draft "isn't particularly deep." I think there is solid talent throughout this draft, but this can be said by either side in an attempt to make their argument look stronger.



It would be more difficult, but let's not pretend like it's that much more difficult. Again, teams make deals all the time while being over the cap.

The odds are that we are going to be at the bottom for a few more years and that we won't be in a position to lure or sign anyone of significance. What is the point of having cap space if we're not going to be able to sign anyone who will help our core when it comes time to actually be competitive?

The fear or having little to no cap space for the next few years is bizarre. You cite a few reasons why you're so worried about not having cap flexiblity....

1. Locking them into a roster - false, cap flexibility will return in 3 years when our young guys start to develop and become actual NBA players. We can decide then who will we be resigning are there any FAs that make sense to go after (and that would hopefully be interested in our team because the core guys are starting to look promising). And again, we can always trade. So not only are we not "locked into a roster" in the short term we're not "locked into a roster" in the long term
2. Getting into a tough position - I don't even really know what you mean by this as it's very vague, but I don't see anything tough about adding more youth to the roster and sitting on them for a couple of years while they develop.
3. Not having a clear direction going forward - why is this an issue? Why do we need to know what our direction is at the beginning of a rebuild? What we should be doing is developing our players to the best of our abilities and see where the cream rises to the crop. From there, you can start to see a core forming, who the team should be built around, etc. This is a nonissue at this point in time

Having available cap space CAN be a valuable asset. Possible to either acquire young players or future draft picks with it.

 

[twslam07]

Before I get into it, there are two scenarios on draft day that I'm running through (there's probably more but I'm lazy to go through every single one). For these scenarios, I'm assuming Fultz, Ball, & Jackson are gone before we pick which I think is a pretty safe bet. The first scenario will be if Fox is available at #5. The second scenario will be if Fox is unavailable at #5.

Scenario #1: Fox is Available at #5

1. At #5, take Fox
2. If Isaac, Tatum, or Smith is available at #8, try trading #10/Koufos for #8/Noah & take Isaac, Tatum, or Smith in that order
3. If unable to make the trade for #8 and Isaac, Tatum, or Smith is available at #9, try trading #10/Galloway for #9/Powell & take Isaac, Tatum, or Smith in that order
4. If unable to make the trade for #9 and Isaac, Tatum, Smith, Ntilikina, or Monk is available at #10, take Isaac, Tatum, Smith, Ntilikina, or Monk in that order
5. If unable to select Isaac, Tatum, Smith, Ntilikina, or Monk at #10, try trading #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard
6. If unable to trade #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard, take Z. Collins at #10
7. If able to trade #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard, take Onunoby or J. Jackson in that order at #15
8. If able to trade #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard, take J. Collins, Patton, Rabb, Hartenstein in that order at #20
9. If able to trade #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard, take J. Evans, Diallo, or Giles in that order at #26
10. At #34, take Motley, J. Bell, T. Bryant, Swanigan, Sumner, Hart, or Brooks in that order

Scenario #2: Fox is Off the Board at #5

1. At #5, take Isaac
2. If Smith or Tatum is available at #8, try trading #10/Koufos for #8/Noah & take Smith or Tatum in that order
3. If unable to make the trade for #8 and Smith or Tatum is available at #9, try trading #10/Galloway for #9/Powell & take Smith or Tatum in that order
4. If unable to make the trade for #9 and Smith, Tatum, Ntilikina, or Monk is available at #10, take Smith, Tatum, Ntilikina, or Monk in that order
5. If unable to select Smith, Tatum, Ntilikina, or Monk at #10, try trading #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard
6. If unable to trade #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard, take Z. Collins at #10
   
7. If able to trade #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard, take Onunoby or J. Jackson in that order at #15
8. If able to trade #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard, take J. Collins, Patton, Rabb, Hartenstein in that order at #20
9. If able to trade #10/Koufos for #15/#20/#26/Leonard, take J. Evans, Diallo, or Giles in that order at #26
10. At #34, take Motley, J. Bell, T. Bryant, Swanigan, Sumner, Hart, or Brooks in that order

Both scenarios are trying to prioritize a Fox/Smith & Isaac/Tatum draft haul if possible. And if we're forced into taking a big at #10, look to move the pick for more assets.

 

[twslam07]

Having available cap space CAN be a valuable asset. Possible to either acquire young players or future draft picks with it.

But that is what we're doing here. Using the cap space to acquire young players/picks.

 

[twslam07]

Well, I think we get decent value here, so unless there's somebody there at #10 that knocks my socks off we could get some very nice players. The problem is that we hit a pretty severe roster crunch if we're going to have four first round picks (and forget about our #34, I mean we'd throw it in to make this deal, we might even want to).

Just look at the roster with this trade, assuming we sign Bogdanovic:
Galloway
Hield/Bogdanovich
Richardson/Temple
Labissiere/Leonard
Cauley-Stein/Papagiannis

Add four first-round picks, and that makes 13 players already, and that's assuming we dump Afflalo (safe bet) and Tolliver (less safe bet) and don't want to match an offer sheet for McLemore. There's room for two more players. Now, maybe we grab a Euro guy like Kurucs and stash him for a while, but adding two more draft picks this year really hurts our flexibility and makes us super super super young.

I get why Portland does this, but I'm not sure it's a great idea for us.

Assets are assets. I don't agree that it really hurts our flexibility. In this scenario, this would probably be the team I go into the new year with:

PG - Temple / Galloway
SG - Hield / Bogdanovic / Richardson
SF -
PF - Labissiere / Leonard / Tolliver
C - Cauley-Stein / Papagiannis
#5, #15, #20, #26, & #34

That's 15 right there. If we do need to dump a player, you have someone like Galloway who can easily be waived with his 1 year deal. I'd prefer to hold onto Tolliver, but the same could be said for him. At that point, you have Temple & Tolliver as your veteran leadership to help the young guys along and you probably have constructed a team that won't be very competitive next year. Giving yourself a chance at landing a guy like Ayton, Bamba, Porter Jr., or Doncic in next year's draft. You could be looking at a team like this after the 2018 draft.

PG - Fox (#5) / J. Evans (#26)
SG - Hield / Bogdanovic / Richardson
SF - Porter (2018 1st) / Anunoby (#15) / Temple
PF - Labissiere / Leonard / Hartenstein (#20) / Motley (#34)
C - Cauley-Stein / Papagiannis
*14 roster spots filled

 

[roasthawg]

After marinating on pick #5 for 24 hours I've changed my thinking a bit. My original reaction was Fox or Smith, end of discussion. I believe Jackson will be our first target. He won't get past Phoenix so we'd have to swing a trade with Philly which might be possible given our history with them and their current needs.

If that doesn't happen I think well obviously be hoping for Fox. If he's gone too that's where it gets interesting. Smith is the guy I like but after thinking about it and listening to some draft guys talk about him it seems like he's gonna be viewed as too risky a pick that high... Character/motivation concerns on the basketball court are probably gonna limit his draft stock a bit.

So after thinking on it some more my best guess on who we'd pick if Fultz, Ball, Jackson, and Fox are gone is Malik Monk. Not a point guard just yet so we'll need a yet to play big minutes there this year but maybe a Damian Lillard type combo point in a couple years. Athletic, great shooter, young with upside. I think Vlade takes Monk over Smith if it comes to it possibly.

 

[bajaden]

Well, I think we get decent value here, so unless there's somebody there at #10 that knocks my socks off we could get some very nice players. The problem is that we hit a pretty severe roster crunch if we're going to have four first round picks (and forget about our #34, I mean we'd throw it in to make this deal, we might even want to).

Just look at the roster with this trade, assuming we sign Bogdanovic:
Galloway
Hield/Bogdanovich
Richardson/Temple
Labissiere/Leonard
Cauley-Stein/Papagiannis

Add four first-round picks, and that makes 13 players already, and that's assuming we dump Afflalo (safe bet) and Tolliver (less safe bet) and don't want to match an offer sheet for McLemore. There's room for two more players. Now, maybe we grab a Euro guy like Kurucs and stash him for a while, but adding two more draft picks this year really hurts our flexibility and makes us super super super young.

I get why Portland does this, but I'm not sure it's a great idea for us.

Yeah, I was going to say we would need to draft one or maybe even two European players and stash them for a year or two. We'd almost have to buy out both Afflalo than Toliver. I really don't want any part of Leonard, but what the hell. He could be our secret weapon against Cuz when we play New Orleans. Not sure I would choose Motley either. There are better choices.

 

[funkykingston]

Thanks for correcting your phrasing! It sounded like you were trying to misrepresent the deal by acting like we were just getting a mid to late 1st rounder.

It's a matter of preference I suppose. We might not be getting enough back. I tend to swing a little more towards the opposing team to not be so "homerish" as many fans appear to be when making trade proposals. But the fact stands that limited cap space would not affect us all that much at this stage in the rebuild. Teams are over the cap all of the time in the NBA and they manage to pull off deal after deal after deal. This is getting blown out of proportion in my opinion.

Again, it's to my understanding that the roster has been extended to 17 with two of them having to remain in the D league. #5, #7, #20, #34, I. Cousins, Temple, Hield, Bogdanovic, Richardson, Crabbe, Turner, Harkless, Aminu, Labissiere, Cauley-Stein, Papagiannis, & Leonard. That's 17 right there.

I wouldn't say this draft "isn't particularly deep." I think there is solid talent throughout this draft, but this can be said by either side in an attempt to make their argument look stronger.



It would be more difficult, but let's not pretend like it's that much more difficult. Again, teams make deals all the time while being over the cap.

The odds are that we are going to be at the bottom for a few more years and that we won't be in a position to lure or sign anyone of significance. What is the point of having cap space if we're not going to be able to sign anyone who will help our core when it comes time to actually be competitive?

The fear or having little to no cap space for the next few years is bizarre. You cite a few reasons why you're so worried about not having cap flexiblity....

1. Locking them into a roster - false, cap flexibility will return in 3 years when our young guys start to develop and become actual NBA players. We can decide then who will we be resigning are there any FAs that make sense to go after (and that would hopefully be interested in our team because the core guys are starting to look promising). And again, we can always trade. So not only are we not "locked into a roster" in the short term we're not "locked into a roster" in the long term
2. Getting into a tough position - I don't even really know what you mean by this as it's very vague, but I don't see anything tough about adding more youth to the roster and sitting on them for a couple of years while they develop.
3. Not having a clear direction going forward - why is this an issue? Why do we need to know what our direction is at the beginning of a rebuild? What we should be doing is developing our players to the best of our abilities and see where the cream rises to the crop. From there, you can start to see a core forming, who the team should be built around, etc. This is a nonissue at this point in time

It's pointless to argue over a hypothetical that isn't going to happen but you can't tell me the Kings wouldn't be locked into a roster and then in the next breath say they'd have cap flexibility THREE years later. Turner and Crabbe have ugly contracts and the Kings would be stuck paying them and using roster spots on them for three seasons.

Taking on Portland's bad decision contracts just to move up three spots and get the 20th pick seems incredibly short sighted and pointless.

I'd rather have Bogdanovic and the caproom to add complimentary players that fit with our young players than the 20th pick and Evan Turner and Allen Crabbe.

 

[twslam07]

It's pointless to argue over a hypothetical that isn't going to happen but you can't tell me the Kings wouldn't be locked into a roster and then in the next breath say they'd have cap flexibility THREE years later. Turner and Crabbe have ugly contracts and the Kings would be stuck paying them and using roster spots on them for three seasons.

Taking on Portland's bad decision contracts just to move up three spots and get the 20th pick seems incredibly short sighted and pointless.

Stop saying "locked." It's simply not true. After making this deal, new players can still be acquired and existing players can be sent out. This roster is not "locked" at all.

Now if you want to talk about "cap flexibility," that's a completely different thing. They wouldn't have cap flexibility for 3 years (without making any other moves). So what? What's the big deal? We won't be signing anyone significant in the near term so might as well acquire some assets with that available cap space.

 

[funkykingston]

Stop saying "locked." It's simply not true. After making this deal, new players can still be acquired and existing players can be sent out. This roster is not "locked" at all.

Now if you want to talk about "cap flexibility," that's a completely different thing. They wouldn't have cap flexibility for 3 years (without making any other moves). So what? What's the big deal? We won't be signing anyone significant in the near term so might as well acquire some assets with that available cap space.

Potatoe pahtato. Three years with no capspace is limiting and makes things difficult for no real great benefit.

I'd rather have Bogdanovic than the 20th pick as your proposal would only leave $4.1M to sign him with which could likely mean he stays overseas.

And a year of watching a rookie PG with Temple as the only backup? All to move up three spots and get a late 1st to add to the #5, #10, and #34 picks the Kings already have in this draft?

Agree to disagree I guess but I'd be furious if that deal got made. Year 1 of a total rebuild and you blow all your cap flexibility and near term roster flexibility to move up a couple slots and acquire the 20th pick while taking on four guys from the Blazers that I have zero interest in. No thanks.

There are easier ways to add another late first if Vlade really has a burning desire to do that.

 

[upinsmoke]

Potatoe pahtato. Three years with no capspace is limiting and makes things difficult for no real great benefit.

I'd rather have Bogdanovic than the 20th pick as your proposal would only leave $4.1M to sign him with which could likely mean he stays overseas.

And a year of watching a rookie PG with Temple as the only backup? All to move up three spots and get a late 1st to add to the #5, #10, and #34 picks the Kings already have in this draft?

Agree to disagree I guess but I'd be furious if that deal got made. Year 1 of a total rebuild and you blow all your cap flexibility and near term roster flexibility to move up a couple slots and acquire the 20th pick while taking on four guys from the Blazers that I have zero interest in. No thanks.

There are easier ways to add another late first if Vlade really has a burning desire to do that.

I agree we should hold onto our cap space until the right deal comes along.

 

[funkykingston]

Yeah, I was going to say we would need to draft one or maybe even two European players and stash them for a year or two. We'd almost have to buy out both Afflalo than Toliver. I really don't want any part of Leonard, but what the hell. He could be our secret weapon against Cuz when we play New Orleans. Not sure I would choose Motley either. There are better choices.

Sam Hinkie was fully committed to a long term rebuild and tank job and whether you like him or hate him he had a good strategy for it.

And part of that was drafting and stashing. Also, being willing to deal a young guy early when his value was highest as he did with MCW. Also, keep your cap sheet clean so you can be a third team to facilitate trades and squeeze out and asset or two.

I'm not a fan of multi-year blatant tank jobs but every rebuilding team should take a page from him and give themselves as many options as possible.

 

[twslam07]

Potatoe pahtato. Three years with no capspace is limiting and makes things difficult for no real great benefit.

I'd rather have Bogdanovic than the 20th pick as your proposal would only leave $4.1M to sign him with which could likely mean he stays overseas.

And a year of watching a rookie PG with Temple as the only backup? All to move up three spots and get a late 1st to add to the #5, #10, and #34 picks the Kings already have in this draft?

Agree to disagree I guess but I'd be furious if that deal got made. Year 1 of a total rebuild and you blow all your cap flexibility and near term roster flexibility to move up a couple slots and acquire the 20th pick while taking on four guys from the Blazers that I have zero interest in. No thanks.

There are easier ways to add another late first if Vlade really has a burning desire to do that.

Agree to disagree. The Bogdanovic point is a good one, but you could still work a minor deal so that it's possible.

You keep saying it will make things difficult, but other than maybe having to find a minor move to accommodate Bogdanovic (e.g., Aminu/Harkless for extra space), it really won't. Be specific. Talking in generalities doesn't do you any good.

Personally, I'd like to have a shot at getting Isaac with our 2nd pick. That's most likelly not going to happen at 10. The moving up of 3 spots is vital in that case, but I may be higher on Isaac than you.

 

[funkykingston]

Agree to disagree. The Bogdanovic point is a good one, but you could still work a minor deal so that it's possible.

You keep saying it will make things difficult, but other than maybe having to find a minor move to accommodate Bogdanovic (e.g., Aminu/Harkless for extra space), it really won't. Be specific. Talking in generalities doesn't do you any good.

Personally, I'd like to have a shot at getting Isaac with our 2nd pick. That's most likelly not going to happen at 10. The moving up of 3 spots is vital in that case, but I may be higher on Isaac than you.

I'm big on Isaac but I don't see star potential in him. I see a very good probability of a high level role player. A slightly worse shooting Rashard Lewis or Marvin Williams with added shotblocking. Maybe a less fluid, worse passing Kirilenko. But I also don't see him getting past Minnesota and I definitely don't see Thibs wanting to trade down so he can add two rookies instead of one. I think he'd much rather trade for a veteran player or just take Isaac. Put it this way - if Isaac were there at 10 would you trade the chance to draft him for say, the 12th & 13th picks? I definitely wouldn't. So why would Minnesota trade down?

And it IS a very general statement. A rebuilding team shouldn't blow all of its caproom in year one for minimal gains. Taking on one bad contract to gain an asset? Sure. Taking on four? Especially with three years left on most of them? Nope. It's bad cap management and bad rebuilding strategy.

The goal is to be looking to collect additional assets. You're proposing a deal that nets the Kings one minor asset in exchange for cap room and then takes away that avenue to use collecting more assets down the road.

At next year's trading deadline you want to be able to help facilitate another trade to pick up another asset. Same thing at the next year's deadline. That's flexibility. That's keeping options available. Not saying, "well the Kings never sign any star players anyway so why not take all of Portland's bad contracts and for the 15th and 20th picks?" Its shortsighted.

 

[Suicide King]

I am fine taking on a bad contract or two for picks that we get to make. However we should absolutely retain cap flexibility for 2019 FA and beyond.

I will never agree with this mantra of "no one good will ever sign here so don't try". Everything is only so until it isn't. Meaning we will get good FAs to sign, its a matter of when, not if, and you better have the capspace to capitalize when opportunity knocks.

Just my opinion

 

[twslam07]

I'm big on Isaac but I don't see star potential in him. I see a very good probability of a high level role player. A slightly worse shooting Rashard Lewis or Marvin Williams with added shotblocking. Maybe a less fluid, worse passing Kirilenko. But I also don't see him getting past Minnesota and I definitely don't see Thibs wanting to trade down so he can add two rookies instead of one. I think he'd much rather trade for a veteran player.

And it IS a very general statement. A rebuilding team shouldn't blow all of its caproom in year one for minimal gains. Taking on one bad contract to gain an asset? Sure. Taking on four? Especially with three years left on most of them? Nope. It's bad cap management and bad rebuilding strategy.

The goal is to be looking to collect additional assets. You're proposing a deal that nets the Kings one minor asset in exchange for cap room and then takes away that avenue to use collecting more assets down the road.

At next year's trading deadline you want to be able to help facilitate another trade to pick up another asset. Same thing at the next year's deadline. That's flexibility. That's keeping options available. Not saying, "well the Kings never sign any star players anyway so why not take all of Portland's bad contracts and for the 15th and 20th picks?" Its shortsighted.

A lot of time teams will take on these late 1st rounders to dump a contact (unless you're the Kangz and you decide to give up pick swaps & unprotected picks), but this move is helping us get an ever higher pick in the top 10. Moving up 3 spots could make all the difference to find that star, and right now, we need all the star potential we can get.

You also have to keep in mind guys like Aminu (26), Crabbe (25), & Harkless (24). These guys are not worthless to us. Crabbe is on a bad contract, but you can't say the same about Aminu & Harkless. You can easily use those guys in trades down the road to bring aboard a late pick. Aminu had a 1.26 RPM and Harkless had a 0.86 RPM. That is solid & plenty of contending teams are going to be looking for good defenders who aren't a net negative when out on the floor. Both Aminu & Harkless fit that bill. Crabbe has tools but has yet to bring it all together. Maybe things start to click in a year or two and he's all of a sudden a solid 3&D SG/SF.

So let's be clear, this trade is not acquiring "one minor asset" as you incorrectly put it (we're back at square one after you corrected yourself). The trade is to help us move up and draft a player we would think has star potential (Isaac), picking up another mid 1st rounder (#20), picking up two young, defensive wings who help their team win when on the floor who are not only only good deals, but can likely be moved for future picks, and a flyer on a SG/SF who has tools but has yet to put it together (sounds like McLemore doesn't it). The negative is taking on Turner and Leonard while also not have the cap flexibility to sign anyone in FA for the next few years which is not much of a negative at all when you look at the Kings' FA history.

 

[Joshoua]

A Ball Fox 1on1 work out would drop Ball out of the lottery

 

[Kingster]

They can have Malachi!

I'm guessing they'd want #5 and #10. That seems too steep for me. Ball scares me. He's got the funky shot, the inability to turn the corner or penetrate consistently, struggles to guard quick PGs and hasn't shown that he can be nearly as effective in the half court and running the pick and roll. And yet he showed up at UCLA and transformed their offense and made them a winner. I tend to think he'll end up being a very successful pro. Still, I'll be a bit relieved if he goes #2 and the Lakers take the risk of his game not translating or being as effective in the NBA.

Ball scares me too! Ball scares me because he's going to be winning games for the Lakers for years to come. THAT scares me!

 

[Kingster]

A Ball Fox 1on1 work out would drop Ball out of the lottery

Do you remember what happened when Tyreke Evans went against Curry in the Kings' work out?

 

[funkykingston]

A lot of time teams will take on these late 1st rounders to dump a contact (unless you're the Kangz and you decide to give up pick swaps & unprotected picks), but this move is helping us get an ever higher pick in the top 10. Moving up 3 spots could make all the difference to find that star, and right now, we need all the star potential we can get.

You also have to keep in mind guys like Aminu (26), Crabbe (25), & Harkless (24). These guys are not worthless to us. Crabbe is on a bad contract, but you can't say the same about Aminu & Harkless. You can easily use those guys in trades down the road to bring aboard a late pick. Aminu had a 1.26 RPM and Harkless had a 0.86 RPM. That is solid & plenty of contending teams are going to be looking for good defenders who aren't a net negative when out on the floor. Both Aminu & Harkless fit that bill. Crabbe has tools but has yet to bring it all together. Maybe things start to click in a year or two and he's all of a sudden a solid 3&D SG/SF.

So let's be clear, this trade is not acquiring "one minor asset" as you incorrectly put it (we're back at square one after you corrected yourself). The trade is to help us move up and draft a player we would think has star potential (Isaac), picking up another mid 1st rounder (#20), picking up two young, defensive wings who help their team win when on the floor who are not only only good deals, but can likely be moved for future picks, and a flyer on a SG/SF who has tools but has yet to put it together (sounds like McLemore doesn't it). The negative is taking on Turner and Leonard while also not have the cap flexibility to sign anyone in FA for the next few years which is not much of a negative at all when you look at the Kings' FA history.

You still haven't explained why Thibodeau would trade down for #10 & #15 to let the Kings draft Isaac. I see zero chance of that happening.

And while I'm very high on Isaac I'd much rather have Anunoby (if he's medically cleared) than Isaac if the price between the two is having to take on Crabbe, Turner, Aminu, Harkless, and Leonard.

 

[funkykingston]

Do you remember what happened when Tyreke Evans went against Curry in the Kings' work out?

But Tyreke was a phenomenal one on one player. Especially when smaller PGs were forced to guard him. Ball is a bigger PG but he doesn't have Tyreke's aggressiveness in attacking the basket, strength to bully smaller guards and finish through contact or his quick first step. Tyreke also had a huge wingspan and good lateral quickness on defense, neither of which Ball possesses.

I'm a Lonzo Ball fan (I'll learn to hate him if the Lakers draft him) but one-on-one workouts won't play to his strengths.

 

[twslam07]

You still haven't explained why Thibodeau would trade down for #10 & #15 to let the Kings draft Isaac. I see zero chance of that happening.

And while I'm very high on Isaac I'd much rather have Anunoby (if he's medically cleared) than Isaac if the price between the two is having to take on Crabbe, Turner, Aminu, Harkless, and Leonard.

Well if that has a 0% chance at happening, then I'm not doing this deal to begin with, but the thought is if Minnesota favors Markkanen they could trade back, pick him up, and potentially pick up a guy like Anunoby to be a defensive wing.

In regards to what you have said about Isaac, I would not say you're very high on him which is perfectly fine. You're entitled to your own opinion.

And again, you shouldn't be using a negative connotation when referencing Harkless & Aminu ("take on"), but feel free to twist the words however you'd like.

Making the Trade:
Pros: Isaac, Harkless, Aminu, #20
Cons: Crabbe, Turner, & Leonard

Staying As Is:
Pros: Anunoby (or whoever you want at #10)
Cons: N/A

It's not just one asset coming our way.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

A Ball Fox 1on1 work out would drop Ball out of the lottery

All right, let's throw the brakes on the Lonzo Ball hate here. I know it's getting pretty popular to bash the guy but staying in the realm of reality is probably a good call.

 

[funkykingston]

If Minnesota favored Markkanen then they'd draft Markkanen, not trade back and risk the Mavs taking him. You trade back when you don't like any of the consensus players available at that spot or when you are certain that your player will be there after a trade down.

You've made a lot of assumptions about who will be available at different points in the draft.