Kings need to move on from Barnes.

J

jellyfish

Bench
#1
#1
This is not just from the Lakers game but since he got here, the guy looks and behaves like a good player but he's not he at no point has helped the Mavericks/Kings win in the last 4-5 years and is invisible at least 50% of the time. Giving him a massive contract was the 2nd biggest mistake the Kings have made recently (we all know the first mistake).

Sadly its probably going to take our 1st rounder to get rid of him but I think it will be worth it, I'm sure a team like the Knicks (Portis/Knox without a 1st)/Atlanta or some of those would do it and maybe give us something ok back/with potential. This is a guy who has been relatively injury free and hitting his prime years right now it's not going to get better than this. If we don't move him it will be a Batum in Charlotte situation.

Before moving Bogi/Bjelica/Bagley/Giles/Dedmon they need to move Barnes first.
(Yes he will probably come out next game and have 20-30).
 
Last edited:
hrdboild

hrdboild

Moloch in whom I dream Angels!
Staff member
#2
#2
I have a hard time believing Barnes and Buddy are the problem when as recently as 8 months ago they looked like guys we wanted to build the team around. It's quite likely Bogi and Giles are gone next year too and Bagley is either injured or playing limited minutes off the bench so that's roughly half the rotation which suddenly looks like garbage? I suppose we could dump everybody but Fox and Holmes and rebuild this team now to fit Luke Walton's system but holy cow is that a massive disappointment. These players are good, they're not the problem. Barnes couldn't cut it as a number 1 option but he's a solid contributer on a team that knows how to use him. There has to be a better way.
 
J

jellyfish

Bench
#3
#3
hrdboild said:
I have a hard time believing Barnes and Buddy are the problem when as recently as 8 months ago they looked like guys we wanted to build the team around. It's quite likely Bogi and Giles are gone next year too and Bagley is either injured or playing limited minutes off the bench so that's roughly half the rotation which suddenly looks like garbage? I suppose we could dump everybody but Fox and Holmes and rebuild this team now to fit Luke Walton's system but holy cow is that a massive disappointment. These players are good, they're not the problem. Barnes couldn't cut it as a number 1 option but he's a solid contributer on a team that knows how to use him. There has to be a better way.
Click to expand...
He can't cut it as a number 3 option, how is he not the problem? He's been at BEST the 4th most important starter after Fox/Bjelly/Holmes (he's been less improtant than Buddy as well). The Mavericks got rid of him for Justin Jackson and Z-BO......Also Barnes at no point was looked as the guy we want to build around when he was outplayed by Shumpert.
 
Last edited:
hrdboild

hrdboild

Moloch in whom I dream Angels!
Staff member
#5
#5
jellyfish said:
He can't cut it as a number 3 option, how is he not the problem? He's been at BEST the 4th most important starter after Fox/Bjelly/Holmes (he's been less improtant than Buddy as well). The Mavericks got rid of him for Justin Jackson and Z-BO......Also Barnes at no point was looked as the guy we want to build around when he was outplayed by Shumpert.
Click to expand...
No, the Mavs got rid of him for cap space so they could afford a max level free agent. I also don't know how he could have been outplayed by Shumpert last year when the Kings traded for Barnes on the same day they traded Shumpert to Houston. They never played even one game together. Vlade signed him to a 4 year extension for starter money this summer. That's a guy you're building around. Not the guy but a guy. None of this is hard to figure out, I think you're just looking for someone to blame at this point but the answer is obvious. If half the team suddenly sucks compared to last year its not the players.
 
J

jellyfish

Bench
#6
#6
hrdboild said:
No, the Mavs got rid of him for cap space so they could afford a max level free agent. I also don't know how he could have been outplayed by Shumpert last year when the Kings traded for Barnes on the same day they traded Shumpert to Houston. They never played even one game together. Vlade signed him to a 4 year extension for starter money this summer. That's a guy you're building around. Not the guy but a guy. None of this is hard to figure out, I think you're just looking for someone to blame at this point but the answer is obvious. If half the team suddenly sucks compared to last year its not the players.
Click to expand...
As in the Kings were better with Shumpert than with Barnes under the same coach (the excuse last year was he needs more time to gel with the team and yet Shumpert instantly clicked with them).
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#7
#7
I disagree. I also don't think moving on from Barnes is a prerequisite for even a rebuild on the fly scenario. Barnes is what Barnes is. If you aren't winning he won't wow you so you think he's expendable. Just like a lot of players, he's not if used right. He's also not so old that he can't fit in through a retooling as well. The Kings as a whole are up and down, left and right from game to game and it starts from the coaches seat and trickles down from there. We see some players one night, not the next. They'll go zone for 3 plays then never again. They ride the hot hand, then go away for long stretches.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#8
#8
jellyfish said:
As in the Kings were better with Shumpert than with Barnes under the same coach (the excuse last year was he needs more time to gel with the team and yet Shumpert instantly clicked with them).
Click to expand...
That's almost like saying the Kings were a much better team without Fox, Bagley, and Bogdan so we should just move on. The numbers say it's fact but in reality you're comparing the ceiling of a middle of the rung depth chart with one that while not showing results (again usage folks) is clearly heads and shoulders above the other in terms of talent and potential. The Kings were figured out by the opposition well before the Barnes trade just like they were figured well before Fox, Bagley, Bogdan or whoever rejoined the ranks. If the Kings train were rolling and not starting to slip off the tracks already it would be one thing, but that's not what happened. It's almost like any and all of the greatest player debates you can get into. The major problem with those is it's usually a contest between someone in their prime vs. someone that has that downhill portion of their career as part of their resume. Wait for the entire picture to be painted then compare. Maybe out of simple familiarity the Kings w/o Barnes might have squeaked out a few more wins. Who cares? In the end, the potential to win was much greater and still is now with Barnes playing even as just a 2 way role player.
 
J

jellyfish

Bench
#9
#9
SacTownKid said:
That's almost like saying the Kings were a much better team without Fox, Bagley, and Bogdan so we should just move on. The numbers say it's fact but in reality you're comparing the ceiling of a middle of the rung depth chart with one that while not showing results (again usage folks) is clearly heads and shoulders above the other in terms of talent and potential. The Kings were figured out by the opposition well before the Barnes trade just like they were figured well before Fox, Bagley, Bogdan or whoever rejoined the ranks. If the Kings train were rolling and not starting to slip off the tracks already it would be one thing, but that's not what happened. It's almost like any and all of the greatest player debates you can get into. The major problem with those is it's usually a contest between someone in their prime vs. someone that has that downhill portion of their career as part of their resume. Wait for the entire picture to be painted then compare. Maybe out of simple familiarity the Kings w/o Barnes might have squeaked out a few more wins. Who cares? In the end, the potential to win was much greater and still is now with Barnes playing even as just a 2 way role player.
Click to expand...
Based on what? How is tying up 24million per year on a guy who does not move the needle increase our potential?
 
HebrewHammer

HebrewHammer

G-League
#10
#10
SacTownKid said:
I disagree. I also don't think moving on from Barnes is a prerequisite for even a rebuild on the fly scenario. Barnes is what Barnes is. If you aren't winning he won't wow you so you think he's expendable. Just like a lot of players, he's not if used right. He's also not so old that he can't fit in through a retooling as well. The Kings as a whole are up and down, left and right from game to game and it starts from the coaches seat and trickles down from there. We see some players one night, not the next. They'll go zone for 3 plays then never again. They ride the hot hand, then go away for long stretches.
Click to expand...
Agreed. He is a good complimentary piece on a solid team.
We overpaid for him, but holding that against him is somewhat similar to holding a number 3 pick against a number 2 pick. It will make him difficult to move, though, if that will become an issue.
Crazy that he's roughly half a year older than Buddy. Seems like he has been around for ages.
 
Kings_of_California

Kings_of_California

Starter
#12
#12
I've always said that I don't have an issue with Barnes the player, I have an issue with Barnes' contract. He's a fairly versatile player, useful to a certain degree. But the $ aspect is a burden.

He's not playing anywhere near what he's getting paid. I knew this would happen, and I think a lot of others did too.

I'm not specifically pointing the finger at HB and saying he's a problem and needs to go. This team has a myriad of other more serious problems that take precedence.

Still, the Barnes contract sucks and if the Kings even consider trading him, there's no value. He'd have to be sent out with a pick or something
 
Kings_of_California

Kings_of_California

Starter
#13
#13
Albatros said:
He's not really here to be "the guy." It's quite hard to move on from someone who is like the 4th option on the team.

We need to move on from Bagley though.
Click to expand...
You're right, he's not. But he's being paid like he is. It's a strange situation when your 4th option on offense is one of your highest paid players.

I think the Kings will just keep chugging along with him until the contract is up, or he gets traded as an expiring during his final year.
 
Showtime

Showtime

Starter
#16
#16
I hated the trade that brought him here because it ruined a playoff appearance, and I absolutely hated re-signing him because he proved thus far in his career that he doesn't help a winning team. "But the warriors!" Yeah, and what was he? A sixth man! He's not a sixth man here, he's supposed to be the #2/3 option. He's not that kind of player, and shouldn't be paid like it either. He's unmovable now with his deal.
 
Kingster

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#18
#18
I'm inclined to believe Grant and Christie: Barnes is burned out from his summer play and his rigorous preparation regiment. Same situation we've seen from Bogs for three years. Let's see how he does after the All Star break.
 
Showtime

Showtime

Starter
#19
#19
Kingster said:
I'm inclined to believe Grant and Christie: Barnes is burned out from his summer play and his rigorous preparation regiment. Same situation we've seen from Bogs for three years. Let's see how he does after the All Star break.
Click to expand...
So everybody else who plays is fine but he can't hack that schedule at 20 years old?
 
F

Folsomkingsfan

Starter
#24
#24
Just move him to the bench. It worked for Hield. I’d rather just stick it out with him than give up a first to get him out of here. He won’t cause any issues and could become a key reserve.
 
G

Groovygreg

Starter
#25
#25
Kings_of_California said:
I've always said that I don't have an issue with Barnes the player, I have an issue with Barnes' contract. He's a fairly versatile player, useful to a certain degree. But the $ aspect is a burden.

He's not playing anywhere near what he's getting paid. I knew this would happen, and I think a lot of others did too.

I'm not specifically pointing the finger at HB and saying he's a problem and needs to go. This team has a myriad of other more serious problems that take precedence.

Still, the Barnes contract sucks and if the Kings even consider trading him, there's no value. He'd have to be sent out with a pick or something
Click to expand...
Well summarized. Barnes is overpaid for what he brings to this Kings team, at least insofar as the way he currently is being utilized. Other than post-ups, it doesn’t seem as if plays are being run for him, so his contributions become situational and therefore inconsistent. Overall he is solid defensively, but as with this squad as a whole, the opposition can exploit the relative lack of athleticism.
 
gunks

gunks

Hall of Famer
#28
#28
Trade a 1st to move Barnes? That's crazy.

IF Vlade wanted to move Mr. Invisible, I'm sure there would be takers. Let's not forget that when a player with a solid history plays like crap here, other GMs take it with a grain of salt. "Oh, he'll get back to his own self once he's off that dumpster fire team".

And while Barnes is absolutely overpaid for his current production. I'd reckon his contract is fair if he played to his potential.

But who would we even replace him with? JJ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.