You and Gguod have the right idea in mind as far as trading cap space for bad contracts +picks but that's not really what the market is dictating these days. Teams aren't really trading away first round picks to get rid of bad contracts anymore. The idea is great but I don't believe the deals are available since other teams aren't really getting those deals either.
[Game] Kings v. Magic - Monday, Jan. 13 - 7PT/10ET
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
- Status
These trades just happened this offseason:
The funny thing is Iguodala, Harkless, & Warren are probably just as impactful or more impactful than those 3 vets we signed too.
- Andre Iguodala/2024 1st for Cap Space
- Maurice Harkless/2023 1st for Cap Space
- TJ Warren/#32 for Cap Space
- Crabbe/#17/2020 1st for Prince/2nd
The funny thing is Iguodala, Harkless, & Warren are probably just as impactful or more impactful than those 3 vets we signed too.
And I am saying (well, what I am also saying) is that there isn't one and only path to a proper rebuild. It's not like there's a checklist, and you have to get all ten out of ten for it to "count." You are both on some, "Well, the Kings didn't manage to take back a bloated contract, attached to a bunch of picks, therefore it wasn't a rebuild." And I'm not with that: the Kings dumped their star player, replaced their entire veteran core with a young one, and got enough picks to do something with. That's close enough to a "proper" rebuild to count. Whether the Kings maximized those picks is for y'all to discuss.
The bolded is where you're misrepresenting us. We never said it "wasn't a rebuild." We said it "wasn't a proper rebuild." And your definition of a "proper" rebuild likely differs from ours.
A mistake you see made with rebuilding team's make is locking up their cap space with veteran role players before they even know if they have any established stars on the roster. That's what happened here in Sacramento. Fox & Bagley are still not established stars. Fox could still top out as a Jeff Teague. Bagley could become the next Anthony Randolph. We don't really know at this point.
I've used this analogy before, but Vlade essentially went all-in with a 10 (Barnes), Jack (Bogdan), & Queen (Hield) after the flop hoping to hit a King (Fox) & Ace (Bagley) on the turn & river. It's possible but it wasn't a smart bet at the time and it's not looking like a smart bet now.
A mistake you see made with rebuilding team's make is locking up their cap space with veteran role players before they even know if they have any established stars on the roster. That's what happened here in Sacramento. Fox & Bagley are still not established stars. Fox could still top out as a Jeff Teague. Bagley could become the next Anthony Randolph. We don't really know at this point.
I've used this analogy before, but Vlade essentially went all-in with a 10 (Barnes), Jack (Bogdan), & Queen (Hield) after the flop hoping to hit a King (Fox) & Ace (Bagley) on the turn & river. It's possible but it wasn't a smart bet at the time and it's not looking like a smart bet now.
You’re the one who mentioned a “checklist.” Nowhere did we say a rebuild can’t be classified as a “proper” rebuild without making a salary dump trade. So it seems (again) like you’re misrepresenting us.
You’re the one who stated that our rebuild was a “proper” rebuild. @Gguod and I disagree with your assessment.
You’re the one who stated that our rebuild was a “proper” rebuild. @Gguod and I disagree with your assessment.
I am aware that I am the one who mentioned a checklist. That's the reason why I said that those two statements cannot be taken in isolation. It is essential to question of whether the Kings' rebuild "counts" as a "proper" rebuild (Which yes, I did state, but was not the person who introduced the concept into the conversation, so you can't put that on me).
I do not believe that I misrepresenting you: @SLAB claimed that the Kings have not done a "proper" rebuild. I claimed that they have. Then @Gguod disagreed, based on the premise that the Kings' rebuild does not count as a "proper" rebuild, because the veterans they traded for weren't good enough ("We had tons and tons of cap space while there were teams giving up first round picks (for example Demarre Carrol) or all star players (Russel) for salary dumps"). I challenged the validity of that premise, and then you shifted gears to saying that it still doesn't count as a "proper" rebuild, because it did not include a step where the Kings took on a bad contract, in exchange for multiple draft picks, which I also challenged. Where in that am I misrepresenting either of you?
I do not believe that I misrepresenting you: @SLAB claimed that the Kings have not done a "proper" rebuild. I claimed that they have. Then @Gguod disagreed, based on the premise that the Kings' rebuild does not count as a "proper" rebuild, because the veterans they traded for weren't good enough ("We had tons and tons of cap space while there were teams giving up first round picks (for example Demarre Carrol) or all star players (Russel) for salary dumps"). I challenged the validity of that premise, and then you shifted gears to saying that it still doesn't count as a "proper" rebuild, because it did not include a step where the Kings took on a bad contract, in exchange for multiple draft picks, which I also challenged. Where in that am I misrepresenting either of you?
Our core players are 1 - 3 years into their careers. This is the rebuild......
76ers didn't make playoffs until Embiid's 4th year. Warriors didn't make the playoffs until Curry's 4th year. In the meantime, those teams kept drafting and losing. There doesn't appear to be the stomach for a full rebuild with this fan base or organization.
76ers didn't make playoffs until Embiid's 4th year. Warriors didn't make the playoffs until Curry's 4th year. In the meantime, those teams kept drafting and losing. There doesn't appear to be the stomach for a full rebuild with this fan base or organization.
@Gguod did not say it wasn’t a proper rebuild because we didn’t acquire good enough veterans. That’s a misrepresentation.
You said I think the Kings need to hit a specific “step” (making a salary dump trade) for it to be considered a “proper” rebuild. That’s a misrepresentation.
Making a salary dump trade is not a prerequisite for it to be called a “proper” rebuild. However, signing role player veterans to big money over multiple years when we do not have established stars on the roster yet is a disqualifier for calling it a “proper” rebuild (from my point of view). That’s where I think you’re getting confused with your “checklist” comment and your interpretation of my posts.
You said I think the Kings need to hit a specific “step” (making a salary dump trade) for it to be considered a “proper” rebuild. That’s a misrepresentation.
Making a salary dump trade is not a prerequisite for it to be called a “proper” rebuild. However, signing role player veterans to big money over multiple years when we do not have established stars on the roster yet is a disqualifier for calling it a “proper” rebuild (from my point of view). That’s where I think you’re getting confused with your “checklist” comment and your interpretation of my posts.
Last edited:
You're right they did. But there was never really a sense it was the system, and there was a sense another year of maturity would help refine the teams bad habits which led to those losses. I dont even know what this team is. What their identity is. If you dont know who you are or what you are it is more difficult to turn it around
- Status