Bagley refused to come into game
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
Harkless is a decent defender at this stage of his career but I think Barnes brings significantly more on offense to outweigh the difference on defense.
Again, if Fox started this season taking another leap forward from his play last season vs regressing then I don't think I'd be entertaining this trade idea nearly as much. That said if you make this deal, you'd be looking at a starting lineup of:
Holmes
Simmons
Barnes
Haliburton
Mitchell
Which is darn good defensively as is and has enough offense/shooting to make up for Simmons inability to score outside the paint.
But you could go all in on defense with Thybulle replacing either Barnes or Hali depending on the other teams's wings.
For small ball situations you could even run Simmons at the 5 and surround him with shooting:
Simmons
Barnes (or Thybulle depending on matchups)
Hield
Haliburton
Mitchell (or Davis)
I just love watching Thybulle play defense but the larger reality is that Simmons gives the Kings a LOT more positional flexibility than Fox, especially with the roster being so guard and big heavy right now.
C Holmes/Len/Thompson/Jones
PF Simmons/Metu/Woodard
SF Barnes/Harkless/Thybulle
SG Haliburton/Hield/Ramsey
PG Mitchell/Davis
The only real issue is that the team would only have 3 PGs (Simmons is really a PG as well) and all three of them are in the starting lineup so you'd have to stagger their minutes appropriately. But that's an easy fix in the offseason or possibly the trade deadline and that roster is better balanced, better defensively and still has enough shooting/scoring to not worry about that end of the floor. I think that's a playoff level roster easily.
Again, if Fox started this season taking another leap forward from his play last season vs regressing then I don't think I'd be entertaining this trade idea nearly as much. That said if you make this deal, you'd be looking at a starting lineup of:
Holmes
Simmons
Barnes
Haliburton
Mitchell
Which is darn good defensively as is and has enough offense/shooting to make up for Simmons inability to score outside the paint.
But you could go all in on defense with Thybulle replacing either Barnes or Hali depending on the other teams's wings.
For small ball situations you could even run Simmons at the 5 and surround him with shooting:
Simmons
Barnes (or Thybulle depending on matchups)
Hield
Haliburton
Mitchell (or Davis)
I just love watching Thybulle play defense but the larger reality is that Simmons gives the Kings a LOT more positional flexibility than Fox, especially with the roster being so guard and big heavy right now.
C Holmes/Len/Thompson/Jones
PF Simmons/Metu/Woodard
SF Barnes/Harkless/Thybulle
SG Haliburton/Hield/Ramsey
PG Mitchell/Davis
The only real issue is that the team would only have 3 PGs (Simmons is really a PG as well) and all three of them are in the starting lineup so you'd have to stagger their minutes appropriately. But that's an easy fix in the offseason or possibly the trade deadline and that roster is better balanced, better defensively and still has enough shooting/scoring to not worry about that end of the floor. I think that's a playoff level roster easily.
Last edited:
The hilarious thing is that for as much as I've defended Bagley (and it's true, I have), the post you quoted wasn't actually intended to defend Bagley at all. It was just pointing out that folks who complain that they'd get fired if they refused to work are in different, non-analogous circumstances to NBA basketball players.
I'd take that too though (1) I've wanted Thybulle in a Kings jersey since his rookie year and (2) Niang can't be dealt until at least 12/5.
That said, you could replace Niang with Paul Reed (who I wanted the Kings to draft) and it would work. In either case a 3 for 2 deal means the Kings have to waive or trade somebody on the roster, probably Jones.
That said, you could replace Niang with Paul Reed (who I wanted the Kings to draft) and it would work. In either case a 3 for 2 deal means the Kings have to waive or trade somebody on the roster, probably Jones.
Not sure if it's hilarious. I'm just too lazy to scroll back for a more applicable quote. It's just bad all around. You think a coach will get him right but everything we've seen and heard points to the opposite. You are loyal and tireless. I'm done. He's shown very little for how much of a headache he is.
How can you look at Luke and say he's in over his head but look at Bagley and give him all the excuses in the world? Bagley doesn't seem in over his head here?
How can you look at Luke and say he's in over his head but look at Bagley and give him all the excuses in the world? Bagley doesn't seem in over his head here?
I'm certainly not tireless. I'm quite tired of defending Bagley against the barrage of assaults that he's gotten from his own fanbase since the moment he was selected in the draft instead of Golden Boy. Loyal? To Bagley, not necessarily. The guy seems like a chucklehead to me. To the idea that we have, on our roster for one more year, a player at 22 years old with the size/athleticism/skill to develop into an all-star, and that as such we ought to play and develop him rather than bench him because of squabbles with the coach? Yes, I'm loyal to that. Maybe he doesn't pan out, I can accept that. But at this point, on top of his injuries, it's pretty clear that he's been behind the eight ball with Walton from the moment Luke stepped in, and this final year of his contract now appears to be completely burned. All-stars don't grow on trees and they damn well don't sign free agent contracts in Sacramento, so if we want to actually be a good team again, we need to develop the potential all-stars that we have. With Fox, we've done a decent job of it. At least he plays. He's not perfect. His defensive effort is spotty, his jumper isn't good and hasn't really improved...but he plays. But Bagley? No. His potential is completely wasted because the coach doesn't like him. Ultimately, how far back is Walton's refusal to play and develop Bagley going to set our perpetual rebuild? If we're "lucky", 0 years, because Bagley turns out to be a stiff. But what if Bagley gets booted out of Sacramento, lands somewhere else and develops into his actual potential, becomes a player that we'd kill to have on our team? Are we set back 3, 4, 5 years because of our coach? So yes, I'm loyal to the idea that we should be playing and developing Bagley. It's common sense.
I can look at Luke and say he's in over his head because his record - which is much longer than Bagley's - is terrible. Bagley has barely clocked 3000 minutes, and he's 22. Walton has coached 19300+ minutes (5 full seasons, plus this one), his best finish was 8 more losses than wins, and he is literally the only coach in the past 16 years under whom LeBron has missed the playoffs. We all watch his lineups, and his decision making, and we watch his teams go on inexplicable 9-game skids three times a year. The dude ain't got it. Sure, he "coached" the '15-'16 Warriors to 39-4, but let's be honest. Put ME in that chair and the Warriors probably go 38-5. Put a Jell-O Salad in that chair and the Warriors don't do worse than 37-6. But in a league where more than half the teams make the playoffs, he hasn't led a team to the playoffs in 5 chances, and he's doing his best to make it six in a row. The only reason Luke is still here is that he's under contract. That's it. He has no future in the league as a successful head coach. At least there's a chance that Bagley pans out, and we're wasting it. That's the difference.
I can look at Luke and say he's in over his head because his record - which is much longer than Bagley's - is terrible. Bagley has barely clocked 3000 minutes, and he's 22. Walton has coached 19300+ minutes (5 full seasons, plus this one), his best finish was 8 more losses than wins, and he is literally the only coach in the past 16 years under whom LeBron has missed the playoffs. We all watch his lineups, and his decision making, and we watch his teams go on inexplicable 9-game skids three times a year. The dude ain't got it. Sure, he "coached" the '15-'16 Warriors to 39-4, but let's be honest. Put ME in that chair and the Warriors probably go 38-5. Put a Jell-O Salad in that chair and the Warriors don't do worse than 37-6. But in a league where more than half the teams make the playoffs, he hasn't led a team to the playoffs in 5 chances, and he's doing his best to make it six in a row. The only reason Luke is still here is that he's under contract. That's it. He has no future in the league as a successful head coach. At least there's a chance that Bagley pans out, and we're wasting it. That's the difference.
You know who went in the game with 2 mins left in a blow out after getting no PT? Metu vs the pelicans. Came in, was cheered, hit a 3 and got more cheers from the fans. Then got 19 and 20 mins the next couple games. It’s what you do with the time you are given. Take it and earn more PT, or refuse and sit. Just don’t complain if you make the wrong choice and don’t get what you want.
The other lens to view this through is that regardless of how good or (let's be honest here) bad a coach Walton is, if Bagley had shown up to camp as clearly a better player I don't see how Luke wouldn't have inserted him into the starting lineup.
Walton has to realize that if he fails with the Kings that his next head coaching gig isn't going to come any time soon. So I have to imagine he's trying to win games. And Bagley hasn't shown that he's going to contribute to winning basketball. He runs the floor well and can score in the paint against most defenders with relative ease. But he also is still a sieve on defense and pretty much a black hole on offense.
In his fourth season he's still largely potential and hasn't done enough to prove that he's a net positive for the team.
Walton has to realize that if he fails with the Kings that his next head coaching gig isn't going to come any time soon. So I have to imagine he's trying to win games. And Bagley hasn't shown that he's going to contribute to winning basketball. He runs the floor well and can score in the paint against most defenders with relative ease. But he also is still a sieve on defense and pretty much a black hole on offense.
In his fourth season he's still largely potential and hasn't done enough to prove that he's a net positive for the team.