If the Draft Were Today...
- Thread starter AMR42700
- Start date
Forgot to add, he’s also, now, severely overpaid when the cap is likely to compress because of the Covid hit in 2020 and 2021.
Speaking of which, here’s an interesting analysis from Windhorst. Windhorst fundamentally misunderstands why a company takes out a line of credit (to cover existing expenses; not capital for expansion), but I guess GSW could decide to go for broke even when they’re bleeding.
https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/259266/Warriors-Financial-Edge-Could-Be-Even-Bigger-In-20-21
Speaking of which, here’s an interesting analysis from Windhorst. Windhorst fundamentally misunderstands why a company takes out a line of credit (to cover existing expenses; not capital for expansion), but I guess GSW could decide to go for broke even when they’re bleeding.
https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/259266/Warriors-Financial-Edge-Could-Be-Even-Bigger-In-20-21
If in trade dealings all we can get for Hield is a pick at 6 or similar, then I’d not sell low. Overpaid? Maybe but that’s the NBA. You can go through most rosters and find that. Maybe the franchise should wait for a new coach who can use him correctly because he will go to Atlanta and light it up. 6 and Reddish For Hield and the earliest 2nd round pick Sac has. If Buddy has lost perceived value, you can’t tell me Reddish hasn’t lost value as well. This is the game that’s being played right? If we can’t get a couple of young pieces back, then the other teams can pound sand.
Buddy Hield can be a useful player. Buddy Hield as your 3rd best player (or 1st/2nd) is likely an indication that you're not a contending team.
At his current contract ($22 mil/year), he is an overpay. It doesn't mean an overpaid player can't be someone that helps a team, but it doesn't mean he's going to return much value in a trade considering his contract makes it difficult for another team to build a contender since he takes up a significant amount of the cap.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see Bogdanovic get something that isn't too far away from the max extension we offered him ($51.4 mil over 4 years) considering the current NBA financial situation and the fact that he is a RFA. He could land somewhere between $14-$17 mil per year. That's likely a more valuable player/contract than Hield at $22 mil/year).
Getting the 6th pick for Buddy Hield would be an absolute home run. Nobody in their right mind would offer us the 6th pick for Buddy Hield, but I'm very surprised to see we have posters here that would decline such a deal. The 6th pick will be paid $6.6 mil/year for 4 years. If Hield was making $6.6 mil/year for the next 4 years then I can see an argument to be made. However, you still have the potential of picking a player that could be better than Hield (or worse) so I could see certain teams prefer one approach over the other, but obviously Hield is making considerably more.
I don't think some of you realize that paying a 4th best player/6th man $21.5 mil per year somewhat limits the ceiling of the team, and moving a contract/player like that for a cheap, 6th pick allows us to somewhat reset that mistake and have a chance to build a great team.
For reference, Brogdon was given $85 mil over 4 years. Hield was given $88 mil over 4 years (looking at the likely incentives). Brogdon is a much better, more impactful player than Hield, and can seriously be the 3rd best player on a great team.
From ATL's side, they would be foolish to a trade like this. Not just because they are losing tremendous value in the deal, but a Young/Hield backcourt would likely be one of the worse defensive backcourts the league has seen. They need a defensive presence next to Young long term.
Below are some impact stats from Hield (for reference):
At his current contract ($22 mil/year), he is an overpay. It doesn't mean an overpaid player can't be someone that helps a team, but it doesn't mean he's going to return much value in a trade considering his contract makes it difficult for another team to build a contender since he takes up a significant amount of the cap.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see Bogdanovic get something that isn't too far away from the max extension we offered him ($51.4 mil over 4 years) considering the current NBA financial situation and the fact that he is a RFA. He could land somewhere between $14-$17 mil per year. That's likely a more valuable player/contract than Hield at $22 mil/year).
Getting the 6th pick for Buddy Hield would be an absolute home run. Nobody in their right mind would offer us the 6th pick for Buddy Hield, but I'm very surprised to see we have posters here that would decline such a deal. The 6th pick will be paid $6.6 mil/year for 4 years. If Hield was making $6.6 mil/year for the next 4 years then I can see an argument to be made. However, you still have the potential of picking a player that could be better than Hield (or worse) so I could see certain teams prefer one approach over the other, but obviously Hield is making considerably more.
- The 6th pick has the chance to be better than Hield, and knowing Hield is likely the 4th best player/6th man on a great team, that's not a huge bar for the 6th pick to overcome
- The 4th best player/6th man on a great team making $22 mil/year is not a good value from a cap perspective
- Hield will be making ~3.33X more than the 6th pick which allows the team to use that extra cap space in other ways to improve the team
- The team will also have RFA control over the 6th pick in 4 years time. Hield will be an UFA in 4 years and the decision to leave is entirely up to him
I don't think some of you realize that paying a 4th best player/6th man $21.5 mil per year somewhat limits the ceiling of the team, and moving a contract/player like that for a cheap, 6th pick allows us to somewhat reset that mistake and have a chance to build a great team.
For reference, Brogdon was given $85 mil over 4 years. Hield was given $88 mil over 4 years (looking at the likely incentives). Brogdon is a much better, more impactful player than Hield, and can seriously be the 3rd best player on a great team.
From ATL's side, they would be foolish to a trade like this. Not just because they are losing tremendous value in the deal, but a Young/Hield backcourt would likely be one of the worse defensive backcourts the league has seen. They need a defensive presence next to Young long term.
Below are some impact stats from Hield (for reference):
Last edited:
All I'm concerned about is the shooting. If Hayes can't shoot, then he and Fox can't coexist. He's been inconsistent but he's shown that he can be a good shooter.
Size isn't that big a factor to me. Both guys are long and rangy and Hayes is bigger and longer than Fox. Remember VanVleet and Lowry start together and neither is taller than 6'1".
The team really needs someone else that can create for themselves and others. A standard 3&D type player is no different than acquiring another Bazemore. It isn't going to make a lick of difference.
I don't know how it would work out with contracts and all that but if the Kings don't trade up in the draft, I think they should go after Caris Levert and draft Nesmith if he's available. There would be a lot more play making on the team and Hield and Nesmith could purely concentrate on doing what they do best, which is moving without the ball and knocking down threes at an elite rate.
Size isn't that big a factor to me. Both guys are long and rangy and Hayes is bigger and longer than Fox. Remember VanVleet and Lowry start together and neither is taller than 6'1".
The team really needs someone else that can create for themselves and others. A standard 3&D type player is no different than acquiring another Bazemore. It isn't going to make a lick of difference.
I don't know how it would work out with contracts and all that but if the Kings don't trade up in the draft, I think they should go after Caris Levert and draft Nesmith if he's available. There would be a lot more play making on the team and Hield and Nesmith could purely concentrate on doing what they do best, which is moving without the ball and knocking down threes at an elite rate.
Buddy Hield can be a useful player. Buddy Hield as your 3rd best player (or 1st/2nd) is likely an indication that you're not a contending team.
At his current contract ($22 mil/year), he is an overpay. It doesn't mean an overpaid player can't be someone that helps a team, but it doesn't mean he's going to return much value in a trade considering his contract makes it difficult for another team to build a contender since he takes up a significant amount of the cap.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see Bogdanovic get something that isn't too far away from the max extension we offered him ($51.4 mil over 4 years) considering the current NBA financial situation and the fact that he is a RFA. He could land somewhere between $14-$17 mil per year. That's likely a more valuable player/contract than Hield at $22 mil/year).
Getting the 6th pick for Buddy Hield would be an absolute home run. Nobody in their right mind would offer us the 6th pick for Buddy Hield, but I'm very surprised to see we have posters here that would decline such a deal. The 6th pick will be paid $6.6 mil/year for 4 years. If Hield was making $6.6 mil/year for the next 4 years then I can see an argument to be made. However, you still have the potential of picking a player that could be better than Hield (or worse) so I could see certain teams prefer one approach over the other, but obviously Hield is making considerably more.
I don't think some of you realize that paying a 4th best player/6th man $21.5 mil per year somewhat limits the ceiling of the team, and moving a contract/player like that for a cheap, 6th pick allows us to somewhat reset that mistake and have a chance to build a great team.
For reference, Brogdon was given $85 mil over 4 years. Hield was given $88 mil over 4 years (looking at the likely incentives). Brogdon is a much better, more impactful player than Hield, and can seriously be the 3rd best player on a great team.
From ATL's side, they would be foolish to a trade like this. Not just because they are losing tremendous value in the deal, but a Young/Hield backcourt would likely be one of the worse defensive backcourts the league has seen. They need a defensive presence next to Young long term.
Below are some impact stats from Hield (for reference):
At his current contract ($22 mil/year), he is an overpay. It doesn't mean an overpaid player can't be someone that helps a team, but it doesn't mean he's going to return much value in a trade considering his contract makes it difficult for another team to build a contender since he takes up a significant amount of the cap.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see Bogdanovic get something that isn't too far away from the max extension we offered him ($51.4 mil over 4 years) considering the current NBA financial situation and the fact that he is a RFA. He could land somewhere between $14-$17 mil per year. That's likely a more valuable player/contract than Hield at $22 mil/year).
Getting the 6th pick for Buddy Hield would be an absolute home run. Nobody in their right mind would offer us the 6th pick for Buddy Hield, but I'm very surprised to see we have posters here that would decline such a deal. The 6th pick will be paid $6.6 mil/year for 4 years. If Hield was making $6.6 mil/year for the next 4 years then I can see an argument to be made. However, you still have the potential of picking a player that could be better than Hield (or worse) so I could see certain teams prefer one approach over the other, but obviously Hield is making considerably more.
- The 6th pick has the chance to be better than Hield, and knowing Hield is likely the 4th best player/6th man on a great team, that's not a huge bar for the 6th pick to overcome
- The 4th best player/6th man on a great team making $22 mil/year is not a good value from a cap perspective
- Hield will be making ~3.33X more than the 6th pick which allows the team to use that extra cap space in other ways to improve the team
- The team will also have RFA control over the 6th pick in 4 years time. Hield will be an UFA in 4 years and the decision to leave is entirely up to him
I don't think some of you realize that paying a 4th best player/6th man $21.5 mil per year somewhat limits the ceiling of the team, and moving a contract/player like that for a cheap, 6th pick allows us to somewhat reset that mistake and have a chance to build a great team.
For reference, Brogdon was given $85 mil over 4 years. Hield was given $88 mil over 4 years (looking at the likely incentives). Brogdon is a much better, more impactful player than Hield, and can seriously be the 3rd best player on a great team.
From ATL's side, they would be foolish to a trade like this. Not just because they are losing tremendous value in the deal, but a Young/Hield backcourt would likely be one of the worse defensive backcourts the league has seen. They need a defensive presence next to Young long term.
Below are some impact stats from Hield (for reference):
Maybe we should get a coach who can use Hield correctly. You can trade Buddy and focus on his weaknesses and say what a great move by Sac but if it’s for a simple pick that is a talent dump. Tell me when Sac signs the next truly relative free agent now or in the future to replace that talent.
What statement Is more true? Hield is overpaid or these rookie picks are overrated?
Buddy Hield can be a useful player. Buddy Hield as your 3rd best player (or 1st/2nd) is likely an indication that you're not a contending team.
At his current contract ($22 mil/year), he is an overpay. It doesn't mean an overpaid player can't be someone that helps a team, but it doesn't mean he's going to return much value in a trade considering his contract makes it difficult for another team to build a contender since he takes up a significant amount of the cap.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see Bogdanovic get something that isn't too far away from the max extension we offered him ($51.4 mil over 4 years) considering the current NBA financial situation and the fact that he is a RFA. He could land somewhere between $14-$17 mil per year. That's likely a more valuable player/contract than Hield at $22 mil/year).
Getting the 6th pick for Buddy Hield would be an absolute home run. Nobody in their right mind would offer us the 6th pick for Buddy Hield, but I'm very surprised to see we have posters here that would decline such a deal. The 6th pick will be paid $6.6 mil/year for 4 years. If Hield was making $6.6 mil/year for the next 4 years then I can see an argument to be made. However, you still have the potential of picking a player that could be better than Hield (or worse) so I could see certain teams prefer one approach over the other, but obviously Hield is making considerably more.
I don't think some of you realize that paying a 4th best player/6th man $21.5 mil per year somewhat limits the ceiling of the team, and moving a contract/player like that for a cheap, 6th pick allows us to somewhat reset that mistake and have a chance to build a great team.
For reference, Brogdon was given $85 mil over 4 years. Hield was given $88 mil over 4 years (looking at the likely incentives). Brogdon is a much better, more impactful player than Hield, and can seriously be the 3rd best player on a great team.
From ATL's side, they would be foolish to a trade like this. Not just because they are losing tremendous value in the deal, but a Young/Hield backcourt would likely be one of the worse defensive backcourts the league has seen. They need a defensive presence next to Young long term.
Below are some impact stats from Hield (for reference):
At his current contract ($22 mil/year), he is an overpay. It doesn't mean an overpaid player can't be someone that helps a team, but it doesn't mean he's going to return much value in a trade considering his contract makes it difficult for another team to build a contender since he takes up a significant amount of the cap.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see Bogdanovic get something that isn't too far away from the max extension we offered him ($51.4 mil over 4 years) considering the current NBA financial situation and the fact that he is a RFA. He could land somewhere between $14-$17 mil per year. That's likely a more valuable player/contract than Hield at $22 mil/year).
Getting the 6th pick for Buddy Hield would be an absolute home run. Nobody in their right mind would offer us the 6th pick for Buddy Hield, but I'm very surprised to see we have posters here that would decline such a deal. The 6th pick will be paid $6.6 mil/year for 4 years. If Hield was making $6.6 mil/year for the next 4 years then I can see an argument to be made. However, you still have the potential of picking a player that could be better than Hield (or worse) so I could see certain teams prefer one approach over the other, but obviously Hield is making considerably more.
- The 6th pick has the chance to be better than Hield, and knowing Hield is likely the 4th best player/6th man on a great team, that's not a huge bar for the 6th pick to overcome
- The 4th best player/6th man on a great team making $22 mil/year is not a good value from a cap perspective
- Hield will be making ~3.33X more than the 6th pick which allows the team to use that extra cap space in other ways to improve the team
- The team will also have RFA control over the 6th pick in 4 years time. Hield will be an UFA in 4 years and the decision to leave is entirely up to him
I don't think some of you realize that paying a 4th best player/6th man $21.5 mil per year somewhat limits the ceiling of the team, and moving a contract/player like that for a cheap, 6th pick allows us to somewhat reset that mistake and have a chance to build a great team.
For reference, Brogdon was given $85 mil over 4 years. Hield was given $88 mil over 4 years (looking at the likely incentives). Brogdon is a much better, more impactful player than Hield, and can seriously be the 3rd best player on a great team.
From ATL's side, they would be foolish to a trade like this. Not just because they are losing tremendous value in the deal, but a Young/Hield backcourt would likely be one of the worse defensive backcourts the league has seen. They need a defensive presence next to Young long term.
Below are some impact stats from Hield (for reference):
2019 Jarrett Culver, Texas Tech – Minnesota Timberwolves
2018 Mohamed Bamba, Texas – Orlando Magic
2017 Jonathan Isaac, Florida State – Orlando Magic
2016 Buddy Hield, Oklahoma – New Orleans Pelicans
2015 Willie Cauley-Stein, Kentucky – Sacramento Kings
2014 Marcus Smart, Oklahoma St. – Boston Celtics
2013 Nerlens Noel, Kentucky – New Orleans Pelicans
2012 Damian Lillard, Weber State – Portland Trail Blazers
2011 Jan Vesely, Czech Republic – Washington Wizards
2010 Ekpe Udoh, Baylor – Golden State Warriors
2009 Johnny Flynn, Syracuse – Minnesota Timberwolves
2008 Danilo Gallinari, Italy – New York Knicks
2007 Yi Jianlian, China – Milwaukee Bucks
2006 Brandon Roy, Washington – Minnesota Timberwolves
2005 Martell Webster, Seattle Prep HS – Portland Trail Blazers
2004 Josh Childress, Stanford – Atlanta Hawks
2003 Chris Kaman, Central Michigan – L.A. Clippers
2002 Dajuan Wagner, Memphis – Cleveland Cavaliers
2001 Shane Battier, Duke – Memphis Grizzlies
2000 DerMarr Johnson, Cincinnati – Atlanta Hawks
I'm gonna ignore pre-2005 and cos I didn't know those players well enough aside from Kaman and Battier, as well as Bamba/Culver since it's too early to tell.
Clearly better than Buddy:
Lillard
Brandon Roy
Maybe better than Buddy (when it's all said and done)
Jonathan Isaac
Marcus Smart
Gallinari
Definitely worse than Buddy/Pretty much bust
Noel
WCS
Vesely
Udoh
Yi Jianlian
Flynn
Obviously there are picks after #6 that are better than Buddy, but point being that having that pick is no guarantee of getting a player anywhere near Buddy's caliber. And let's please not pin our hopes on suddenly being the franchise that finds diamonds in the rough. As for the salary difference - who are we spending it on? Bogdan Bogdanovic? George Hill? John Salmons? C'mon guys let's be real here. You pray you find talent and you pay to keep them. Y'all mad at Buddy's comments that no star free agents are signing in Sac but it's the truth. I know you like to play armchair GM and you put a lot of thought into your 10-way trades but that just doesn't happen in reality.
Last edited:
I don't think the thought process is that Buddy is holding the Kings back and they need to get rid of him to finally become a playoff contender.
The idea is the Kings still aren't going to be a playoff team with a properly used Buddy, a slightly better Fox, a bunch of decent roleplayers and the 12th pick every year. That just isn't looking like it's going to cut it.
People are just trying to figure out a way to get value from the talent we have and turn it into even more value. The Kings aren't going to sign any legitimate free agents that put them over the hump so we can forget about that right now.
So how else are they supposed to get better? Just hold pat and cross their fingers that they draft a Giannis at 12? The Kings only have a few players that they can get any value for so people are trying to figure out how the Kings can use those players to make the team better.
The idea is the Kings still aren't going to be a playoff team with a properly used Buddy, a slightly better Fox, a bunch of decent roleplayers and the 12th pick every year. That just isn't looking like it's going to cut it.
People are just trying to figure out a way to get value from the talent we have and turn it into even more value. The Kings aren't going to sign any legitimate free agents that put them over the hump so we can forget about that right now.
So how else are they supposed to get better? Just hold pat and cross their fingers that they draft a Giannis at 12? The Kings only have a few players that they can get any value for so people are trying to figure out how the Kings can use those players to make the team better.
You are correct. The pick at #6 has a chance to better and worse. Nobody argues that point. The point is that Hield's impact on the game is not some unreachable impact so it increases the odds that the 6th pick would be as good or better than Hield vs. if the discussion was about trading Brogdon for the 6th pick. I think you would agree with that.
How do you define a "big contract" for Bogdan? Specifics matter especially if we're going to continue to analyze this concept. For instance, if we give Bogdan the same exact contract as Hield, that would be a very bad move and I would condemn that decision from the new GM. The point is that Bogdan could have a much lower salary than Hield which makes his trade value higher than Hield.
Am I focusing on his weaknesses? The first line in my post you quoted is "Buddy Hield can be a useful player."
What is a "simple" pick? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is that an attempt to diminish the 6th pick in the draft?
Saying trading Buddy Hield for the 6th pick is a talent dump doesn't make it true. Like you already stated above, "pick At 6 has a chance to be better." I'm not sure how you can definitively say it's a talent dump but then also concede the 6th pick could be more talented than Hield within a few sentences of each other. Which one is it?
You may be worried that it is a downgrade in talent, but good GMs don't focus solely on talent. They focus on value. Hield on a $30mil/year deal is much less valuable than Hield on a $5mil/year deal. To ignore contracts means you're opening yourself up to making poor decisions (like turning down #6 for Buddy Hield would be).
#6 has the potential to be better than Hield (and worse)
#6 makes $15.4 mil/year less than Hield
#6 will come with RFA control while Hield's contract doesn't offer that
See this is a thought that I see a lot posters here make, and it's really odd to think that "cap space" can only be used to sign free agents. I would think you would know that's not the only use for it. It can be used to take on salary dump trades to pick up more assets. So now the equation is not just #6 vs. Hield, but it's #6 + Future 1st vs. Hield.
You also are neglecting that current contracts can sometimes prevent us from resigning our own players. Owners can often times have a limit on what they are willing to spend from a payroll perspective. Hield's contract can be something that prevents a team from resigning another current player because they simply can't afford them.
The "Hield is overpaid" is definitely more true.
How do you define a "big contract" for Bogdan? Specifics matter especially if we're going to continue to analyze this concept. For instance, if we give Bogdan the same exact contract as Hield, that would be a very bad move and I would condemn that decision from the new GM. The point is that Bogdan could have a much lower salary than Hield which makes his trade value higher than Hield.
Am I focusing on his weaknesses? The first line in my post you quoted is "Buddy Hield can be a useful player."
What is a "simple" pick? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is that an attempt to diminish the 6th pick in the draft?
Saying trading Buddy Hield for the 6th pick is a talent dump doesn't make it true. Like you already stated above, "pick At 6 has a chance to be better." I'm not sure how you can definitively say it's a talent dump but then also concede the 6th pick could be more talented than Hield within a few sentences of each other. Which one is it?
You may be worried that it is a downgrade in talent, but good GMs don't focus solely on talent. They focus on value. Hield on a $30mil/year deal is much less valuable than Hield on a $5mil/year deal. To ignore contracts means you're opening yourself up to making poor decisions (like turning down #6 for Buddy Hield would be).
#6 has the potential to be better than Hield (and worse)
#6 makes $15.4 mil/year less than Hield
#6 will come with RFA control while Hield's contract doesn't offer that
See this is a thought that I see a lot posters here make, and it's really odd to think that "cap space" can only be used to sign free agents. I would think you would know that's not the only use for it. It can be used to take on salary dump trades to pick up more assets. So now the equation is not just #6 vs. Hield, but it's #6 + Future 1st vs. Hield.
You also are neglecting that current contracts can sometimes prevent us from resigning our own players. Owners can often times have a limit on what they are willing to spend from a payroll perspective. Hield's contract can be something that prevents a team from resigning another current player because they simply can't afford them.
The "Hield is overpaid" is definitely more true.
As I've shown, history suggests otherwise. Also, it would be the #6 in a draft where we a) don't have a GM; b) have a GM two weeks into the job; c) don't even know what style we're going to be playing given lame duck coach.
Your points about value are valid, but those points don't necessitate moving Hield now. If anything, giving him another half or full year might be to your benefit; unless your main goal is to get the #6 in this particular draft. Asset accumulation, cap space/flexibility etc. don't necessitate moving him now. And again, I think you are severely overweighting the odds of getting a player of far greater value than Hield in terms of team contribution.
Your points about value are valid, but those points don't necessitate moving Hield now. If anything, giving him another half or full year might be to your benefit; unless your main goal is to get the #6 in this particular draft. Asset accumulation, cap space/flexibility etc. don't necessitate moving him now. And again, I think you are severely overweighting the odds of getting a player of far greater value than Hield in terms of team contribution.
Who is saying it's a guarantee that #6 will be a better player than Hield? Nobody has said that and nobody. It's a strawman.
Why not? Do you want to pin your hopes on signing big time free agents to come to SAC? You either draft stars, trade for stars, or sign stars. Signing stars sounds like the most unrealistic. Trading for stars is a possibility, but you have to have the valuable asssets to do this (which requires obtaining good picks and drafting wisely). Drafting stars is the easiest way for small market teams to climb the ladder.
So the fact that you're saying "let's please not pin our hopes on suddenly being the franchise that find diamonds in the rough" makes me think well then what do you want to pin our hopes on? To be good in this league (especially a small market team), you need to draft well. We're getting a new GM so to tie past draft choices to the new GM seems pretty foolish. I think you would agree with that.
Again, I'm confused why posters don't recognize that cap space can be used in multiple ways. I said this in my reply above, but it seems very relevant again here:
It can be used to take on salary dump trades to pick up more assets. So now the equation is not just #6 vs. Hield, but it's #6 + Future 1st vs. Hield.
You also are neglecting that current contracts can sometimes prevent us from resigning our own players. Owners can often times have a limit on what they are willing to spend from a payroll perspective. Hield's contract can be something that prevents a team from resigning another current player because they simply can't afford them.
Sure, but you don't pay your talent so they lose value as an asset.
Where did I say I was mad at Hield's comments? In fact, I don't really care about that comment. I agree with it which is why the focus should be on finding those stars through the draft.
Can you cite an example where I proposed a 10-way trade? Exaggerating to make your point is usually an indication that your point can stand on its own.
Why not? Do you want to pin your hopes on signing big time free agents to come to SAC? You either draft stars, trade for stars, or sign stars. Signing stars sounds like the most unrealistic. Trading for stars is a possibility, but you have to have the valuable asssets to do this (which requires obtaining good picks and drafting wisely). Drafting stars is the easiest way for small market teams to climb the ladder.
So the fact that you're saying "let's please not pin our hopes on suddenly being the franchise that find diamonds in the rough" makes me think well then what do you want to pin our hopes on? To be good in this league (especially a small market team), you need to draft well. We're getting a new GM so to tie past draft choices to the new GM seems pretty foolish. I think you would agree with that.
Again, I'm confused why posters don't recognize that cap space can be used in multiple ways. I said this in my reply above, but it seems very relevant again here:
It can be used to take on salary dump trades to pick up more assets. So now the equation is not just #6 vs. Hield, but it's #6 + Future 1st vs. Hield.
You also are neglecting that current contracts can sometimes prevent us from resigning our own players. Owners can often times have a limit on what they are willing to spend from a payroll perspective. Hield's contract can be something that prevents a team from resigning another current player because they simply can't afford them.
Sure, but you don't pay your talent so they lose value as an asset.
Where did I say I was mad at Hield's comments? In fact, I don't really care about that comment. I agree with it which is why the focus should be on finding those stars through the draft.
Can you cite an example where I proposed a 10-way trade? Exaggerating to make your point is usually an indication that your point can stand on its own.
Then they might as well deal Bogdanovich because in the end, your theory of Hield at 20-22M is less value than Bogdanovich at say, a conservative estimate of $15M. And everyone gets the talent and salary sliding scale evaluation but my point is Bogi at $15M won’t matter either since his abilities cant Get us to the next level and in fact may also be an overpay.
Here is one truth I feel confidant in saying.....and I don’t know his teammates feelings towards him but I believe they are all good with Buddy. If you trade Buddy for a simple pick, I feel as though we may be pushing Fox towards not resigning with us. I mean why would he.
And as of right now, as long as Walton is here, I have zero faith in him grooming rookies and developing them.
And another point that I don’t know which is true but I have an opinion on. Who is more valuable? Hield at $22 or Bogdanovich at $15. Maybe neither. Hield sure was good under Joerger though. I like Bogie but we have seen several years of him having absolute clunker games which leads to losses.
Unless they are going to go Full blown rebuild except for Fox and Bagley as keepers, which would most likely see Fox depart, then they may be wise to swap Hield for a similar talent at SF.
My contention here is Hield for pick 6 is undervaluing him even if he’s making 22M.
Here is one truth I feel confidant in saying.....and I don’t know his teammates feelings towards him but I believe they are all good with Buddy. If you trade Buddy for a simple pick, I feel as though we may be pushing Fox towards not resigning with us. I mean why would he.
And as of right now, as long as Walton is here, I have zero faith in him grooming rookies and developing them.
And another point that I don’t know which is true but I have an opinion on. Who is more valuable? Hield at $22 or Bogdanovich at $15. Maybe neither. Hield sure was good under Joerger though. I like Bogie but we have seen several years of him having absolute clunker games which leads to losses.
Unless they are going to go Full blown rebuild except for Fox and Bagley as keepers, which would most likely see Fox depart, then they may be wise to swap Hield for a similar talent at SF.
My contention here is Hield for pick 6 is undervaluing him even if he’s making 22M.
It's not a strawman - I'm just saying you're trading a bird in hand for birds that might not even be in the bush. There's no guarantee, and while you're not explicitly saying that there is, your entire logic is built upon it. If I tell you that we will certainly draft a bust at #6, will you make the trade? Can you even give a realistic example of someone we might want to resign but not be able to because of Buddy's contract?
In summary you want to trade Buddy Hield for talent we MIGHT get, to create capspace that we can use to resign our own good players that we MIGHT have, or to make FUTURE trades that MIGHT happen to give us more assets that we MIGHT use to get more talent.
Yes, 10-way trade is an exaggeration. Lower it to four or five if you'd like, still basically never happens. Point is, you deal with way too many hypotheticals, and it's evident in your unrealistic trade scenarios (which I enjoy by the way). It's gold for a video game, I'm just saying it never happens.
In summary you want to trade Buddy Hield for talent we MIGHT get, to create capspace that we can use to resign our own good players that we MIGHT have, or to make FUTURE trades that MIGHT happen to give us more assets that we MIGHT use to get more talent.
Yes, 10-way trade is an exaggeration. Lower it to four or five if you'd like, still basically never happens. Point is, you deal with way too many hypotheticals, and it's evident in your unrealistic trade scenarios (which I enjoy by the way). It's gold for a video game, I'm just saying it never happens.
Agreed, keeping Walton right now can be problematic. I think the first order of business is getting their house in order with GM and whether they keep Walton or not. If they keep Walton, Hield’s value is going down because Walton seemingly can’t utilize Hield. Put Hield in the correct system and he‘s pretty good. Keep him with Walton and it is a mismanagement of what he can flourish at.
I said "The point is that Hield's impact on the game is not some unreachable impact so it increases the odds that the 6th pick would be as good or better than Hield." What you posted above does not suggest otherwise. You cited players that are better than Hield; therefore, backing the point that Hield's level of play is not some unreachable level that the 6th pick can't live up to.
So if we were to hire someone from another organization, you don't think they would already be very well versed on the prospects in this draft (considering it is part of their current job responsibilities)? Also, saying they don't know what style we're going to play is an odd comment. That makes me think that you're in the "draft for fit" boat. Whereas, I'm in the "draft best player available" boat.
Who said we have to move him now? However, if you're being offered the 6th pick for a $22mil/year Hield, you take it & run. Nobody will be offering that or close to it by the way. We'd be laughed off the phone.
No, I'm not. I'm well aware the pick could be a better or worse player in the end, but it's about value. The 6th pick is inherently more valuable than Hield on his current contract.
So if we were to hire someone from another organization, you don't think they would already be very well versed on the prospects in this draft (considering it is part of their current job responsibilities)? Also, saying they don't know what style we're going to play is an odd comment. That makes me think that you're in the "draft for fit" boat. Whereas, I'm in the "draft best player available" boat.
Who said we have to move him now? However, if you're being offered the 6th pick for a $22mil/year Hield, you take it & run. Nobody will be offering that or close to it by the way. We'd be laughed off the phone.
No, I'm not. I'm well aware the pick could be a better or worse player in the end, but it's about value. The 6th pick is inherently more valuable than Hield on his current contract.
You seem to be making the argument that Bogdan at $15 mil has more trade value than Hield at $22 mil so we should trade Bogdan. You're shifting the goal post, and what we're talking about here. This conversation started because you guys said you wouldn't trade Hield for #6.
Now if you want to make the argument that we should keep Hield because Bogdan will net more in a trade. That's fine, but again, that's not what we're discussing.
As for his abilities getting us to the next level, I agree. That's why I have a thread has us doing a total rebuild and sending out Hield, Bogdan, Barnes, Bjelica, & Holmes in the effort to collect future assets.
Again, what is a "simple" pick?
I don't know you're afraid Fox wouldn't resign with us. You do realize he is under contract next year and then he is a RFA? We can match any contract offer and retain him. We should be worried about that when it comes time that he is a UFA.
This point is a little moot on my side. If the new GM thinks Walton can develop rookies, then that GM should fire him. If the GM does believe Walton can develop rookies, then there's no issue with drafting rookies. This is putting the cart before the horse.
It's a fair question. I'd lean towards Bogdan, but it's certainly up for debate.
Well I think they should be doing a full rebuild (keeping Fox/Bagley). Hanging with the current roster is likely a capped potential team. As for a similar talent at SF, who would that be? SFs are inherently more valuable in the league than 6'5" SGs. I think you'd be surprised by who you could get with Hield.
Now if you want to make the argument that we should keep Hield because Bogdan will net more in a trade. That's fine, but again, that's not what we're discussing.
As for his abilities getting us to the next level, I agree. That's why I have a thread has us doing a total rebuild and sending out Hield, Bogdan, Barnes, Bjelica, & Holmes in the effort to collect future assets.
Again, what is a "simple" pick?
I don't know you're afraid Fox wouldn't resign with us. You do realize he is under contract next year and then he is a RFA? We can match any contract offer and retain him. We should be worried about that when it comes time that he is a UFA.
This point is a little moot on my side. If the new GM thinks Walton can develop rookies, then that GM should fire him. If the GM does believe Walton can develop rookies, then there's no issue with drafting rookies. This is putting the cart before the horse.
It's a fair question. I'd lean towards Bogdan, but it's certainly up for debate.
Well I think they should be doing a full rebuild (keeping Fox/Bagley). Hanging with the current roster is likely a capped potential team. As for a similar talent at SF, who would that be? SFs are inherently more valuable in the league than 6'5" SGs. I think you'd be surprised by who you could get with Hield.
Lol I love how your takeaway from my post is that there are players picked #6 who can be possibly better than Hield. Do you even probability? Literally on that list of 14 there are two who are clearly better, 3 possibly as good - so let's say we take the middle, i.e. you can reasonably expect 3.5 out of 14 times that a player picked #6 will be as good as or better than Hield. That's 25%. Now it also all depends on timeline - if you're saying blow it all up we can't win in the next 3-4 years I sorta get it. But then again, we should then be open to trading Fox and Bagley too. The way I see it, it only makes sense if your argument is Fox/Bagley + 25% chance of Buddy or better + cap flexibility to get more picks is going to win you a lot more in 2-3 years than Fox/Bagley/Buddy. You seem to think that's a clear cut truth but I don't. I think 25% chance of Buddy or better + cap flexibility wins you more than Buddy 4-5 years from now; but if that's the timeline we're looking at I really really don't understand why we should be hanging on to Fox and Bagley (who in the meantime would probably not be winning much - can we even be sure they're stars then?)
Can you explain why the bolded statements are all true?
"Best available" is all good and dandy, but again realistically style matters. Why? Because as we've clearly seen, not all coaches adapt their styles to maximize their players' abilities. A player's talent translating into production does not exist in a vacuum. You also have an existing roster in place that is also going to play a part in the drafted player's role, and you're not going to trade away the whole roster (ok you can, but if that's the case then we shouldn't only be talking about moving Hield but possibly Fox and Bagley as well). How good would Luka be if the Mavs drafted him and said ok Luka we think you should just be a spot up 3 point shooter and we're gonna let JJ Barea do all the playmaking, also we want to be a tough defensive-minded and we expect you to be a lockdown defender or you're not getting minutes. This pretty much addresses your "wouldn't they be prepared for the draft in other organisations" point.
Look, I am openly saying I don't know the prospects this year. But from everything I'm hearing it's not a strong draft. If you can tell me otherwise that we're realistically potentially going to draft a star at #6, better than Fox, then I'm all in. But if not, you need to be aware of all the considerations I've brought up.
Can you explain why the bolded statements are all true?
"Best available" is all good and dandy, but again realistically style matters. Why? Because as we've clearly seen, not all coaches adapt their styles to maximize their players' abilities. A player's talent translating into production does not exist in a vacuum. You also have an existing roster in place that is also going to play a part in the drafted player's role, and you're not going to trade away the whole roster (ok you can, but if that's the case then we shouldn't only be talking about moving Hield but possibly Fox and Bagley as well). How good would Luka be if the Mavs drafted him and said ok Luka we think you should just be a spot up 3 point shooter and we're gonna let JJ Barea do all the playmaking, also we want to be a tough defensive-minded and we expect you to be a lockdown defender or you're not getting minutes. This pretty much addresses your "wouldn't they be prepared for the draft in other organisations" point.
Look, I am openly saying I don't know the prospects this year. But from everything I'm hearing it's not a strong draft. If you can tell me otherwise that we're realistically potentially going to draft a star at #6, better than Fox, then I'm all in. But if not, you need to be aware of all the considerations I've brought up.
Last edited:
Buddy got that contract because of his 3pt shooting ability. He went on to win the 3pt shooting contest in the ASG this year. He has not lost value because of that contract. He posseses a basically historically elite skill and that is what he was paid for. Expecting his skillset to change simply because he was paid more money is not a realistic reason to sour on the contract.
Take a look at the past poll on this board when that contract was signed. Nobody complained about it back then. There was overwhelming support for it being a bargain deal.
Just because Kings fans don't like how he speaks in the media doesn't mean he has low value to other teams. He would be an absolute stud on the right playoff team.
If the argument is to trade him for salary cap reasons. That's fine. But don't just give him away for a #6 pick. Buddy was a #6 pick AND he worked out. That is way more valuable than a #6 pick in a weak draft when we don't know if the pick will survive in the NBA or not.
Take a look at the past poll on this board when that contract was signed. Nobody complained about it back then. There was overwhelming support for it being a bargain deal.
Just because Kings fans don't like how he speaks in the media doesn't mean he has low value to other teams. He would be an absolute stud on the right playoff team.
If the argument is to trade him for salary cap reasons. That's fine. But don't just give him away for a #6 pick. Buddy was a #6 pick AND he worked out. That is way more valuable than a #6 pick in a weak draft when we don't know if the pick will survive in the NBA or not.
My entire logic is built on the guarantee that #6 will be better than Hield? No, that's not right.
If you can guarantee that #6 would be a bust, would I trade #6 for Hield? So we're now making up scenarios that not only are hypothetical but have no chance of happening (meaning you will never a crystal ball so there is no way you could actually guarantee that).
But let's try to make it more realistic. You're basically asking would I trade Buddy Hield for cap space. The answer would be it depends on the direction of the team. You could use that cap space to then take on bad contracts for picks.
So we're jumping back to "realistic" now? Good that we're back on track
Looking at the Kings current cap situation, no I don't think we're in jeopardy to resign any of our current players, but you conveniently ignored the other use case which is to use the cap space to acquire future assets. And I don't think we need search very long to find instances where did teams did this.
I don't think I could have been clearer in my assessment:
#6 has the potential to be better than Hield (and worse)
#6 makes $15.4 mil/year less than Hield (allowing us to use that cap space in other ways to add value)
#6 will come with RFA control while Hield's contract doesn't offer that
So which trade is unrealistic? You're still being vague.
If you can guarantee that #6 would be a bust, would I trade #6 for Hield? So we're now making up scenarios that not only are hypothetical but have no chance of happening (meaning you will never a crystal ball so there is no way you could actually guarantee that).
But let's try to make it more realistic. You're basically asking would I trade Buddy Hield for cap space. The answer would be it depends on the direction of the team. You could use that cap space to then take on bad contracts for picks.
So we're jumping back to "realistic" now? Good that we're back on track
Looking at the Kings current cap situation, no I don't think we're in jeopardy to resign any of our current players, but you conveniently ignored the other use case which is to use the cap space to acquire future assets. And I don't think we need search very long to find instances where did teams did this.
I don't think I could have been clearer in my assessment:
#6 has the potential to be better than Hield (and worse)
#6 makes $15.4 mil/year less than Hield (allowing us to use that cap space in other ways to add value)
#6 will come with RFA control while Hield's contract doesn't offer that
So which trade is unrealistic? You're still being vague.
I can confidently say Lillard, Roy, Smart, & Isaac are all better than Hield. Gallinari may be on a similar level, Bamba & Culver are too early to tell yet so I'd leave them out. So that gives you 4-5 players who are better so we'll say 4.5. That's out of 12 drafts (shouldn't be counting Hield's draft since he's the comparison and shouldn't be counting Bamba/Culver's drafts since it's too early to tell). So that's 37.5% of drafting a better player & a 17% chance of drafting an All-NBA player. You need to keep in mind that some of these "better players" are not only better, but much better. That should be considered in the decision.
Which I am in favor for.
Fox & Bagley are 22 & 21. I wouldn't agree with that if we're going for a full rebuild.
If the goal is to continue to win today, then trade a useful player for a pick will not coincide with that goal. Nobody is debating that. It's like asking if MIL would trade Middleton for three 1st overall picks. Yeah, it's excellent value for Middleton, but they are right on the verge of trying to win a championship (therefore not coinciding with the vision).
So it comes back to what is our vision? Are we still trying to win now or are we hitting reset? Trying to win seems like futile attempt as we simply don't have the potential talent to ever really be a true contender in the future, so I do think the vision should be a rebuild while holding on to our 21 & 22 year old PG & PF/C.
However, in a vacuum, the 6th pick is more valuable than Buddy Hield on a $22 mil/ year contract.
#6 has the potential to be better than Hield (and worse)
#6 makes $15.4 mil/year less than Hield (allowing us to use that cap space in other ways to add value)
#6 will come with RFA control while Hield's contract doesn't offer that
You're confusing style of play with responsibilities on the floor. Telling Luka to go sit in the corner isn't a "style of play".
I'm fully aware of everything you have brought up. I would say the same to you though that you need to be aware of all the considerations I have brought up.
Which I am in favor for.
Fox & Bagley are 22 & 21. I wouldn't agree with that if we're going for a full rebuild.
If the goal is to continue to win today, then trade a useful player for a pick will not coincide with that goal. Nobody is debating that. It's like asking if MIL would trade Middleton for three 1st overall picks. Yeah, it's excellent value for Middleton, but they are right on the verge of trying to win a championship (therefore not coinciding with the vision).
So it comes back to what is our vision? Are we still trying to win now or are we hitting reset? Trying to win seems like futile attempt as we simply don't have the potential talent to ever really be a true contender in the future, so I do think the vision should be a rebuild while holding on to our 21 & 22 year old PG & PF/C.
However, in a vacuum, the 6th pick is more valuable than Buddy Hield on a $22 mil/ year contract.
#6 has the potential to be better than Hield (and worse)
#6 makes $15.4 mil/year less than Hield (allowing us to use that cap space in other ways to add value)
#6 will come with RFA control while Hield's contract doesn't offer that
You're confusing style of play with responsibilities on the floor. Telling Luka to go sit in the corner isn't a "style of play".
I'm fully aware of everything you have brought up. I would say the same to you though that you need to be aware of all the considerations I have brought up.
