Kings trade Shumpert
- Thread starter SLAB
- Start date
yeah agreed. Probably came down to something Like Jabari/Portis vs our offer of WCS/ZBO or something. And Parker is still young, there's possibly some meat left on that bone they can try out rather than just wasting a spot on ZBO or someone like him.
Who knows if we threw any of our warchest of 2nds at them, but just as a 2v1 trade, the Bulls offer is better.
Who knows if we threw any of our warchest of 2nds at them, but just as a 2v1 trade, the Bulls offer is better.
Not sure where this Wiggins stuff is coming from as he hasn't been associated with the Kings whatsoever, nor has he really been brought up much in trade scenarios.
If this is the Kings angle though, we could do much worse. He's not old and he's got legit SF size, plus he is a scorer. A change of scenery could do him wonders. I know his contract isn't the greatest and he's never quite lived up to expectations, but he would be our best SF in a decade easily.
If this is the Kings angle though, we could do much worse. He's not old and he's got legit SF size, plus he is a scorer. A change of scenery could do him wonders. I know his contract isn't the greatest and he's never quite lived up to expectations, but he would be our best SF in a decade easily.
They still matter. It works like this: You still need ball handling, passing, playmaking and some speed. You still need in-between size guys who can defend, score and shoot. You still need big guys to rebound and handle the paint.
Sometimes you get guys who are of good size and can do many of those things themselves. People confuse teams with those players as showing positions don't matter. No, it's exceptional players who make you more flexible at other positions, but you never succeed without fulfilling those jobs/skills that have long existed at the traditional positions.
So, in regards to Burks, his size at SF matters just because there's Durant/Harris/George, etc. You can go two bigs and three guards often. (That's how the Pels finished the season on a tear.) But eventually you face the true SF who does the SF things and you have no real SF to deal with the size/speed combo.
As for a recent example, part of the reason the Kings beat the Sixers is because Philly is short on typical PGs. They often had TJ McConnel or a non-PG on Fox and they couldn't contain Fox at all. If it wasn't Butler guarding Fox then Philly was in trouble. TJ is the closest they have to a PG, but he's not that quick and Fox really broke him down and every other guard that Philly threw at him. It's also why Philly is probably still looking for a PG before the deadline.
Sometimes you get guys who are of good size and can do many of those things themselves. People confuse teams with those players as showing positions don't matter. No, it's exceptional players who make you more flexible at other positions, but you never succeed without fulfilling those jobs/skills that have long existed at the traditional positions.
So, in regards to Burks, his size at SF matters just because there's Durant/Harris/George, etc. You can go two bigs and three guards often. (That's how the Pels finished the season on a tear.) But eventually you face the true SF who does the SF things and you have no real SF to deal with the size/speed combo.
As for a recent example, part of the reason the Kings beat the Sixers is because Philly is short on typical PGs. They often had TJ McConnel or a non-PG on Fox and they couldn't contain Fox at all. If it wasn't Butler guarding Fox then Philly was in trouble. TJ is the closest they have to a PG, but he's not that quick and Fox really broke him down and every other guard that Philly threw at him. It's also why Philly is probably still looking for a PG before the deadline.
