Trade Suggestion: Fox for Simmons + #28
- Thread starter kb02
- Start date
This question doesn’t factor in everything. We just aren’t given those chances. It’s more like saying one option is a 75% chance to draft an all star, but you have to live in a shack for 4 years and people will make fun of you, or live in a house for 4 years but only have a 25% chance of drafting an all star. (for reference those in the playoffs are living in mansions 
)
)
I'm judging by the posts here during our two ten game losing streaks this year, in what was the best season ever to tank due to limited fan attendance, people here were apoplectic. Even some who claim to be pro tank or thought we should have hired Hinkie as GM (say whatever you will about the process but I think his talent evaluation is on par with Vlade) were going nuts. And those folks who relish after every win in a 30 win campaign would be even more disillusioned. Frankly those are the folks who I think still support this organization with their dollars and aren't just message board fans like I've become over the last dozen years.
You may want to check the calendar on that one.
The Kings ended the 2012-2013 season 2-8 (also, considering that draft class, it was a horrible season to tank). And the 2013-2014 season saw us put together a core of Boogie/IT/Rudy with Mike Malone as a coach and would have required us somehow being worse than the truly terrible Cavs and a Philly team actively trying to lose.
The Kings ended the 2012-2013 season 2-8 (also, considering that draft class, it was a horrible season to tank). And the 2013-2014 season saw us put together a core of Boogie/IT/Rudy with Mike Malone as a coach and would have required us somehow being worse than the truly terrible Cavs and a Philly team actively trying to lose.
I have a hard time believing that the Sixers wouldn't rather have D. Fox to B. Simmons come playoff time. De'Aaron and Embiid would be a devastating pair. A lot of us would reject a straight-up Simmons-Fox trade. Sounds like the Kings would as well. So let's assume for a moment that Fox is in the trade mix for Simmons but that it's the Sixers who'd need to sweeten the pot. Let's further assume that the Kings would be much more intrigued if that sweetener took the form of a young player rather than draft picks.
Do the Sixers have a young player whose inclusion with Simmons would make you support a trade for Fox? Shake Milton?
Morey's between a rock and as hard place on this. He does NOT want to run it back next year with Ben Simmons. It doesn't matter what Simmons does in the regular season. It's ALL about the playoffs now for him/them - and there's no way More can feel confident it's gonna work out. At the same time, you don't wanna give Simmons away for peanuts, and in fact Morey insists an all-star's gotta be coming back.
I think there's zero chance that Morey and McNair aren't talking about whether/how a Fox-Simmons trade might possibly work.
Do the Sixers have a young player whose inclusion with Simmons would make you support a trade for Fox? Shake Milton?
Morey's between a rock and as hard place on this. He does NOT want to run it back next year with Ben Simmons. It doesn't matter what Simmons does in the regular season. It's ALL about the playoffs now for him/them - and there's no way More can feel confident it's gonna work out. At the same time, you don't wanna give Simmons away for peanuts, and in fact Morey insists an all-star's gotta be coming back.
I think there's zero chance that Morey and McNair aren't talking about whether/how a Fox-Simmons trade might possibly work.
Comparing things that are forbidden by the rules to a thing that is not isn't a good start to a reasonable discussion about the subject.
Tanking is more comparable to teams starting to chuck threes and almost forbidding mid range shots and high/low post isolations. Or when football teams start to pass way more ect. Its about getting that competitive edge leagally. If tanking is the next worse thing from satan, then let the league change the rules. The moral high ground doesnt warm the heart of an average fan too much when the past 15 years with "morally good" strategy has been pure garbage.
Philly did what they did by the rules and they put themselves in an extremely high ceiling and a very high floor situation. Good for them. They are a team that almost automatically makes the playoffs even when they made multiple mistakes during and after the process. Thats what happens when you stack all the odds in your favour and constantly make smart strategic decisions that supports your timeline.
Tanking is more comparable to teams starting to chuck threes and almost forbidding mid range shots and high/low post isolations. Or when football teams start to pass way more ect. Its about getting that competitive edge leagally. If tanking is the next worse thing from satan, then let the league change the rules. The moral high ground doesnt warm the heart of an average fan too much when the past 15 years with "morally good" strategy has been pure garbage.
Philly did what they did by the rules and they put themselves in an extremely high ceiling and a very high floor situation. Good for them. They are a team that almost automatically makes the playoffs even when they made multiple mistakes during and after the process. Thats what happens when you stack all the odds in your favour and constantly make smart strategic decisions that supports your timeline.
This question doesn’t factor in everything. We just aren’t given those chances. It’s more like saying one option is a 75% chance to draft an all star, but you have to live in a shack for 4 years and people will make fun of you, or live in a house for 4 years but only have a 25% chance of drafting an all star. (for reference those in the playoffs are living in mansions )
)
I think you know where I'm coming from though. The counter argument is always "Good players can be found lower in the draft" and "You aren't guaranteed a good player with a top pick". Both things of those things are completely true but they defy logic when you are talking about working towards getting a higher draft pick where you have higher odds of landing an all star.
I think you misunderstood (probably because I barely gave any context) When vivek bought the team, if he would have said, I want to build a long term winner and everything is on the table. Lets find what we want to keep and strip everything down for assets, we would have all been game. But unfortunately that's not what happened. He made a great hire with Malone then basically everything has been crap since.
So this continued quick fix to a 7/8 seed has resulted in now 7 seasons under new ownership have bad to almost mediocre basketball.
So, sure, we had something happening with Boogie/IT/Gay, but we just kept shuffling deck chairs with overpaid middling vets and bad draft picks.
While the distinction between actions that are against the rules and tanking, which technically isn't, stands, I don't really think the analogy to three-point/passing strategy is a particularly good one. In that analogy, you're comparing actions that teams take to get a competitive edge on a game-by-game basis with actively shunning the competitive edge on a game-by-game basis in the hopes of a long-term competitive edge. Many fans - I'd say probably most, though certainly not all - see a big difference between trying to win at all times, and trying to lose now in the hopes of trying to win later.
Maybe it's not against the rules, but it leaves a bad taste in a lot of fans' mouths in the same way that cheating does. On the other hand, I can only think of one person I've ever known who might say that a team actively shooting more threes to try to win is worse or even on par with tanking, and Slim is a different kind of guy.
Maybe it's not against the rules, but it leaves a bad taste in a lot of fans' mouths in the same way that cheating does. On the other hand, I can only think of one person I've ever known who might say that a team actively shooting more threes to try to win is worse or even on par with tanking, and Slim is a different kind of guy.
I personally would compare tanking to hack a shaq. At the time, within the rules and gives you an advantage. But it wasn’t good for the game and fans hated watching it. It got to a point where the league had to change/alter the rules just like now they’re adjusting the draft to hopefully curb teams from tanking so much.
I think a lot of us here like the idea of tanking vs actually liking it if we went through a tank. On this site alone people were losing their minds after 9 game losing streaks and game threads went from double digit pages to 1 or 2 pages. No one will go to games to watch a losing product knowing they’re trying to lose. These last few years there’s always a chance of watching them win live at g1c unless it’s against a top tier team. I’d bet barely anyone would even watch games at all. Not all fans go on forums or look 5 years down the road. They just want to watch their home team win games and not be in the headlines for longest losing streak or record for most losses in a season. Half this board is split on tanking. I bet casuals would probably be at 75/25 against tanking knowing what would have to come with it.
Last edited:
So Philly would want Fox, Kings say sorry no Fox
How about
Philly gets Hield, Collin Sexton they dont need the picks
Sac gets Simmons
Cavs get Bagley, Our #9 pick, 2023 protected five #1
philly gets two win now players
Cavs get Bagley and two firsts
Kings match TD offer sheet
Offer MLE to Noel
Fox,Wright
Hali,TD
Simmons,Woodard
Barnes, Metu
Noel,Jones
How about
Philly gets Hield, Collin Sexton they dont need the picks
Sac gets Simmons
Cavs get Bagley, Our #9 pick, 2023 protected five #1
philly gets two win now players
Cavs get Bagley and two firsts
Kings match TD offer sheet
Offer MLE to Noel
Fox,Wright
Hali,TD
Simmons,Woodard
Barnes, Metu
Noel,Jones
Last edited:
Even if we kept Fox, Haliburton and Barnes, retained most of the guys that Monte added at the deadline, and re-signed Holmes or got Noel (or both)?
Really feel like Simmons could be the player we were told that Bagley would be (play the 3, defend 5 positions, handles, be the easy dunk guy) high price to pay but if he embraced that role this team would at least be a regular in the playoffs again.
Really feel like Simmons could be the player we were told that Bagley would be (play the 3, defend 5 positions, handles, be the easy dunk guy) high price to pay but if he embraced that role this team would at least be a regular in the playoffs again.
Haha it feels more like we're in a cardboard box these days than a house.
I think you know where I'm coming from though. The counter argument is always "Good players can be found lower in the draft" and "You aren't guaranteed a good player with a top pick". Both things of those things are completely true but they defy logic when you are talking about working towards getting a higher draft pick where you have higher odds of landing an all star.
I think you know where I'm coming from though. The counter argument is always "Good players can be found lower in the draft" and "You aren't guaranteed a good player with a top pick". Both things of those things are completely true but they defy logic when you are talking about working towards getting a higher draft pick where you have higher odds of landing an all star.
PapaGiannis
Skal
Giles
Justin Jackson
Nik Stauskas
Ben McLemore
Willie Cauley-Stein
Malachi Richardson
Gary Trent (traded)
Frank Mason
1st round pick for Cap space
As sad as it is, Gary Trent is easily the best player of the bunch and we punted the pick down the line.
Not to mention we haven't had a SINGLE 2nd round pick since IT2 even play a rotational role for the team. The biggest change McNair can make for this team is to stop freaking wasting draft picks and invest in the development of younger talent. They don't have to be home-run picks every time like Hali, but if he can just start drafting NBA players, we're going to see a significant uptick in performance on the floor.
Oh my. Nice defense, but... Simmons and Noel can't shoot beyond layup range; only HB & Ty have to be respected from 3; Fox would have zero room to operate in the paint; Simmons/Noel/Fox can't be counted on to hit free throws; and Fox-Simmons both need the ball to maximize their offensive contributions.
Other than that...
Other than that...
Last edited:
My first preference was to bite the bullet and tank and add a blue chip prospect in this upcoming draft.
But the new report was Hield/Bagley/3 picks.
But since they didn't do that and since they turn their noses up at any pick not in the 8th-13th range, why not? Hield and Bagley are negative assets anyway too.
Three years of treadmill before we trade Fox otherwise is the alternative. I don't think we can play him at the 3 though, he needs to be in the Draymond role.
But the new report was Hield/Bagley/3 picks.
But since they didn't do that and since they turn their noses up at any pick not in the 8th-13th range, why not? Hield and Bagley are negative assets anyway too.
Three years of treadmill before we trade Fox otherwise is the alternative. I don't think we can play him at the 3 though, he needs to be in the Draymond role.
I'm not the positionless basketball advocate here but I don't care what you call Fox/Hali (1 or 2) and Barnes/Simmons (3 or 4). The 5 would need to be able to shoot since Simmons is going to need to occupy the interior and I guess you defend whoever matches up with what the other team puts out. But I think it would work.
I'm not going to argue that they've drafted historically bad for a long time now. Go look at what the Spurs have done much later in the draft than us and it'll make your jaw drop. That's why I'm in favor of making things more idiot proof for the idiots that make decisions for this team (not counting McNair in that category yet).
If these dummies had a choice between a Luka and Bagley for 3 or 4 years straight, eventually they'll unintentionally pick the Luka and we'll be off and running.
I'm not as concerned with the 2nd rounders but I get your point. The average 2nd round draft only nets about 2-4 players on average so the Kings should probably only hit on a 2nd rounder every 8-10 years or so. I'm talking players around Joe Harris' level and not guys like Hernangomez who wouldn't move the needle for the Kings at all. They traded Trent and Tillman in recent years. Not so sad about Trent because his defense is so bad he wouldn't fit anyway but Tillman hurts because he looks like a player. Too many head scratching "who?" picks and cash consideration trades for my taste. It's not like the Kings have had rosters full of talent to where it just wasn't worth it to squeeze anyone out for 2nd rounders. I'm not super sad about it because there haven't been many game changing decisions but at the same time it's like they don't even give themselves a shot at it either.
If these dummies had a choice between a Luka and Bagley for 3 or 4 years straight, eventually they'll unintentionally pick the Luka and we'll be off and running.
I'm not as concerned with the 2nd rounders but I get your point. The average 2nd round draft only nets about 2-4 players on average so the Kings should probably only hit on a 2nd rounder every 8-10 years or so. I'm talking players around Joe Harris' level and not guys like Hernangomez who wouldn't move the needle for the Kings at all. They traded Trent and Tillman in recent years. Not so sad about Trent because his defense is so bad he wouldn't fit anyway but Tillman hurts because he looks like a player. Too many head scratching "who?" picks and cash consideration trades for my taste. It's not like the Kings have had rosters full of talent to where it just wasn't worth it to squeeze anyone out for 2nd rounders. I'm not super sad about it because there haven't been many game changing decisions but at the same time it's like they don't even give themselves a shot at it either.
I'd argue the Spurs are an endorsement of getting high draft picks.
They've picked in the mid to back end of the first round for years now and have done about as well as you can without picking up a game-changer.
So, they've had a sterling record of going for good, value players wherever they can with a good, well-run organization and and are barely better off than us for their trouble.
They've picked in the mid to back end of the first round for years now and have done about as well as you can without picking up a game-changer.
So, they've had a sterling record of going for good, value players wherever they can with a good, well-run organization and and are barely better off than us for their trouble.