This seems to be the only thing tying the Kings to Sengun. Monte is known as an analytics guy and Sengun is loved by analytics. I just can't see him taking Sengun looking at the type of players he has acquired or tried to acquire.
I can but with a couple caveats.
Sengun makes sense for the Kings if McNair & co believe that Sengun:
(a) is capable of being (or becoming) a full time center in the NBA. They certainly measured him when he visited so I think they'll have a sense of whether he's truly a starting big or a throwback PF that can't man the middle.
(b) has shooting upside that will allow him to be a good floor spacing big in time
So far the only things we can really glean from McNair in terms of what he's said and the moves he's made are that:
- He wants to build around Fox
- He prefers long, athletic, and (ideally) two way wings
- If Haliburton is any indication he prefers high BBIQ players
- Analytics play a significant role in his thinking
In terms of analytics, Sengun's efficiency and playmaking at his size are going to appeal and Sengun clearly has a very good feel for the game.
For the other two points - having a post playing big doesn't preclude having long athletic wings at both forward spots. If anything it's a good balance. As far as the fit with Fox, that could be tricky. Sengun operates in the key which clogs the lane for Fox to attack the basket. Which is why it would have to be the case the Sengun develop his shot to be a floor spacer.
IF those conditions are met, then he provides a different type of offense and additional playmaking as well as rebounding. He's a great outlet passer so he doesn't need to be a WCS running the floor on breaks. He can pass ahead and trail the play.
The biggest issue of course would be adding a potential liability on defense to a team that is already the worst in the league on that end. This is where you'd need good defenders starting at the 3&4. I don't think Sengun and two good wing defenders will ultimately be any worse (and can potentially be significantly better) than Holmes, Bagley, and Barnes were last year. Particularly because Bagley had such glaring deficiencies on that end of the floor.