hi, sixers fan here, just thought I would get that out of the way lol
I'm a really like watching the kings (like everyone this year), but I'm also a big doncic fan and I really enjoyed reading this thread, I think the 'what if' of doncic on the kings is a fascinating thing to think about. If I'm out of bounds commenting here as a sixers fan, sorry just ban me.
Basically, I think the kings made a pretty huge mistake not drafting luka- don't get me wrong, I still like bagley and I still think the kings have a bright future! But missing on a top draft pick can have staggering implications.
I don't think bird vs malone is the best comparison to illustrate this concept (although I get that it was chosen because of player similarities). I think it would be better to look at MJ vs hakeem. Hakeem was ****ing awesome, one of the best centers ever, led the Rockets to a championship carrying the team really hard. Getting hakeem was amazing. But picking hakeem over MJ was a franchise altering mistake. Despite how amazing hakeem was, the gap between hakeem is gigantic- literally a 5 championship difference. Doesn't mean having hakeem is bad though, you could always end up drafting a sam bowie.
There's a general attitude among NBA fans that as long as you get a stud in the draft, you're good. But it's really the opposite- getting the right star is incredibly important. The difference between a dame lillard and a steph curry is the difference between being at best a 2nd round out and winning rings. I'm not saying that luka is MJ or curry, or that bagley is malone or lillard. I'm just trying to illustrate that just because you drafted a stud doesn't mean it's ok that you missed out on an even better prospect- the difference between a star and a superstar is what differentiates slightly above average teams and championship teams.
When it comes to fit, I really don't see why anyone would think luka wouldn't fit well with the kings. Jump shooting perimeter stars fit well on any team. If you think he would take the ball out of fox's hands, well, that's not really a bad thing. I think it's best to look at the rockets in this case. Harden is literally probably the best player in the league (besides maybe lebron) at putting his team on his back and carrying with an incredibly high usage, and yet he's always struggled in the playoffs when he's been without cp3. If carrying the load by himself is too much, how is fox supposed to do it?
Having multiple elite shot creators in the playoffs is the answer. 48 minutes is plenty long for fox to get tons of usage along with doncic. Having 2 primary initiators can push a team to the next level. Also, Doncic and fox can both be great offball player because a) they're both solid shooters b) really good ball dominant players are almost always talented enough to be good offball players too. The idea that the kings need bagley because they need an elite big man? Well, most elite teams have an elite big man, but it's usually a talented do-it-all defender, not an elite interior scorer.
The celtics have horford, the warriors have draymond (not exactly big but he fills the role), the rockets have capela, thunder have adams, pacers myles turner, bucks brook lopez, raptors marc gasol, jazz gobert, etc. The only elite teams with a star center are the nuggets, where jokic really plays point center and not back to the basket big, and the sixers with embiid. Embiid is a semi-transcendent center, and it's still not clear that he can carry the sixers deep into the playoffs.
Bagley is a tweener who doesn't protect the rim, isn't a particularly talented passer, and the jury is still out whether he can space the floor. He might end up being a super talented interior scorer, but is that the way to win in the modern nba? Having multiple perimeter creators with a do-it-all floor spacing/rim protecting defender ala JJJ seems to be the way to go.
Can we really know how good luka and bagley will be? Giannis averaged 7 points per game as a rookie, and evans averaged the same stats as doncic! Well, these guys are extreme outliers. For a rookie to have the stats of tyreke evans and then play worse for his entire career is incredibly unusual. There is definitely some variation in outcomes of 19 year old rookies, and we can't say with any certainty where these rookies will be in 5+ years. However, star players typically show their potential in their first couple of years. Great rookies usually become great players.
All in all, luka has a solid shot at being a high level superstar. His athleticism is a weakness (though not quite as big a one as many people think considering his size), and his shooting is not elite. These could prevent him from becoming a generational talent. However, his upside is incredible. There's a very good argument that no forward in the history of the sport has had luka's level of basketball iq and feel for the game as a teenager. He doesn't have wicked handles, but he's super talented and great at creating shots for himself. He's not an elite shooter, but he's probably an elite tough shot maker and an elite step back 3-point shooter. It's not unrealistic to imagine some combination of lebron and harden's weakness and strengths- harden's athleticism, pick and roll ability and step back shooting (although unlikely to reach harden's level on this one), lebron's height and basketball IQ, an ability to hit tough 2 pointers that neither lebron or harden has, and weaker than lebron and harden at the rim.
If you're not as high on luka as me, and you don't think he can become an all-time great, that's reasonable. Nothing's guaranteed, but I do believe it would be unreasonable to be put bagley and luka on the same tiers as prospects. Luka was a much more effective player as a rookie, played at an all-star level and easily would've been an all-star in the east, and has too many high level skills and traits of a future superstar. Luka could not develop into a high level star, just like tyreke, but it's unlikely and unreasonable to assume so. Age is generally a much better predictor of potential than experience. Discounting him because he's a high skill/iq player and not an athlete, and claiming that he doesn't have much potential left because he's already so skilled, doesn't make a lot of sense. Is there any evidence that incredibly skilled/high iq prospects mature worse than athletic ones? In fact, I'd be much more doubtful of the wiggins-esque prospects who are freak of nature athletes and decent shooters but have never really shown feel for the game, good decision making or the ability to learn new skills. To me, luka's skill is just proof that he knows how to improve his game, rather than simply relying on athleticism to coast through/dominate lower levels of basketball.
Bagley is a nice young prospect, but his weaknesses are significant, and he hasn't yet given any indication of elite upside. Kings fans shouldn't be sad, this team has a bright future! Fox and hield are a great duo, and again, bagley is a solid young player. However, doncic is on another level and would fit incredibly well as the other primary initiator next to fox. Picking bagley over doncic is the type of move that can cost you championships.