Blow It Up
- Thread starter SLAB
- Start date
My issue here is you aren't really getting a premium young asset in return. Those picks are probably in the late teens/early 20's, Deni is fine, but still remains to be seen if he's starter quality going forward. I don't know what that would look like exactly, but i'm holding Fox until you get a top 5 pick and/or a young player equivalent to that in return
The issue is that Fox is only 24 himself so it's pretty hard to get another younger good player beyond hoping a team trades you the first overall pick in the next couple of drafts or something.
Like I said, I'm not really partial to 'blowing things up' since the main pieces on this roster are either still young enough to be part of a 'rebuild' or very useful pieces on contracts that aren't really terrible and thus keepable until the right deal comes around.
I do feel like there's a distinct chance the Wizards end up not being that great in general though. Right now their roster of vet role players and Brad Beal is winning games but by 2024/2025, I don't like their chances, especially if we get a lot of their draft assets in the preceding years via trade. Plus with things how they are, who knows if the staunchly unvaxxed Brad Beal is even allowed to play in the ensuing years.
Like I said, I'm not really partial to 'blowing things up' since the main pieces on this roster are either still young enough to be part of a 'rebuild' or very useful pieces on contracts that aren't really terrible and thus keepable until the right deal comes around.
I do feel like there's a distinct chance the Wizards end up not being that great in general though. Right now their roster of vet role players and Brad Beal is winning games but by 2024/2025, I don't like their chances, especially if we get a lot of their draft assets in the preceding years via trade. Plus with things how they are, who knows if the staunchly unvaxxed Brad Beal is even allowed to play in the ensuing years.
I think there's an inherent contradiction in being a team on the cusp of a play-in seed and saying "we're better off without Fox" and then also asking other teams for either a top 5 pick or an elite prospect in return. Anyone who would be interested in taking on Fox would have playoff aspirations and as such they: (1) won't have a top 5 pick to trade and (2) won't want to give up any pieces which would hurt their playoff chances. They'll also have to buy in to the idea of spending 30 million a year on a guard who is shooting 26% from three right now...
So I feel like we're talking about a very small pool of potential interested parties. We'll mostly get the same "here, take our garbage for your best player" deals we propose regarding other team's players. Which is why being an actual GM is so much harder than being an armchair GM. In the real world you generally need to offer people something they actually want before they'll agree to a trade. I would at least give him a couple months to fix his shooting splits before I started the hard sell strategies.
So I feel like we're talking about a very small pool of potential interested parties. We'll mostly get the same "here, take our garbage for your best player" deals we propose regarding other team's players. Which is why being an actual GM is so much harder than being an armchair GM. In the real world you generally need to offer people something they actually want before they'll agree to a trade. I would at least give him a couple months to fix his shooting splits before I started the hard sell strategies.
Right, the best way to get a top five pick in a trade, it could be argued, is to gamble on a deal with an older team with the hope that they flame out spectacularly like the Brooklyn Nets did after the Pierce/KG deal (or OKC suddenly having picks and pick swap rights for another high lottery team after the Rockets decided to dump Harden). When you're trading a young guy like Fox in order to "blow it up," you're not going to get equivalent value in the immediate future, which is why (unprotected) picks from three or four years down the line end up being important. The issue there is that Fox is still young enough that by the time those picks come around there's a chance that his team is still good.
Of the bad teams currently behind the Kings, only the Pels are in real potential need of a guard. They certainly have a lot of draft assets but barring a Ingram for Fox swap, making the salaries work out with them would be a pain AND a potential Zion/Ingram/Fox core probably winds up making them good enough for their "top-5" picks to turn into top 10-20 picks.
Of the bad teams currently behind the Kings, only the Pels are in real potential need of a guard. They certainly have a lot of draft assets but barring a Ingram for Fox swap, making the salaries work out with them would be a pain AND a potential Zion/Ingram/Fox core probably winds up making them good enough for their "top-5" picks to turn into top 10-20 picks.
Right, which is why I'm not particularly interested in moving off Fox unless you get that premium asset in return (which as you pointed out, is pretty rare to find that right team). That Wizards deal feels far more like moving him just to move him.I think we're 2-3 years out from "needing" to trade him since he's on year 1 of the extension and he's young enough that he can be apart of reset over the next few years.
yup how about we try to actually build around the guy that we paid a bunch of money to who is still 2 years away from beginning his prime. That’s how you’re supposed to run a franchise you say?! How would I know? I’m just a Kangz fan 
Bradley Beal is an elite player, who is 28. He'll still be in his prime at the end of the 24/25 year window.
Fox is a good player with one elite skill set. His ceiling is likely a sometimes all star. At the end of the 24/25 year widow, fox will be just entering his prime.
Translation: Barring injury, there is no way in hell that those picks will be in the top 5. Then you apply basic economics. A dollar today is more valuable than a dollar in 3 to 4 years. Those picks go from being worth maybe a 20th pick today to something like the very back of the first round.
So essentially you get Dinwidee--good, not great. Bryant--good, not great. Dani--solid, young, some upside, but certainly a long way from being above average.
Quantity does not equal quality.
Kings lose that deal. It's not even close.
Fox is a good player with one elite skill set. His ceiling is likely a sometimes all star. At the end of the 24/25 year widow, fox will be just entering his prime.
Translation: Barring injury, there is no way in hell that those picks will be in the top 5. Then you apply basic economics. A dollar today is more valuable than a dollar in 3 to 4 years. Those picks go from being worth maybe a 20th pick today to something like the very back of the first round.
So essentially you get Dinwidee--good, not great. Bryant--good, not great. Dani--solid, young, some upside, but certainly a long way from being above average.
Quantity does not equal quality.
Kings lose that deal. It's not even close.
https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/rebuild-ahead-of-schedule.67735/
There is some discussion on this same subject, from goddamn 2017... I think we can all agree that if we went on full rebuild mode after trading Cousins, we would be so much better off than we are now as we've chased our absolute maximum: the 8th seed.
The question is: how many years we have to do this same exact thing? How many seasons need to be wasted with "just win the games, rebuilding is for losers" approach. As a team you are not good enough if you dont have enough top level talent. Thats pretty much a fact unless you are dreaming of being some sort of serious outlier.
These same arguments circle around year after year. From 2017 to 2021. The future isnt any brighter, there is ZERO results for the strategy selected but still everything continues like business as usuall. Imo thats just disgusting.
There is some discussion on this same subject, from goddamn 2017... I think we can all agree that if we went on full rebuild mode after trading Cousins, we would be so much better off than we are now as we've chased our absolute maximum: the 8th seed.
The question is: how many years we have to do this same exact thing? How many seasons need to be wasted with "just win the games, rebuilding is for losers" approach. As a team you are not good enough if you dont have enough top level talent. Thats pretty much a fact unless you are dreaming of being some sort of serious outlier.
These same arguments circle around year after year. From 2017 to 2021. The future isnt any brighter, there is ZERO results for the strategy selected but still everything continues like business as usuall. Imo thats just disgusting.
Nah, Vlade would have **** the bed on that too.
I agree with you on the rest though. Vivek has put us through this “playoffs is the goal” song and dance since he bought the team, with the same horrible results year after year.
But don’t worry, I’m sure we’ll pivot and start tanking when it’s too late to secure a top draft pick. Another speciality of this woebegone franchise.
I agree with you on the rest though. Vivek has put us through this “playoffs is the goal” song and dance since he bought the team, with the same horrible results year after year.
But don’t worry, I’m sure we’ll pivot and start tanking when it’s too late to secure a top draft pick. Another speciality of this woebegone franchise.
Questions from someone who hasn't watched a lot of games this year -
1. Does it look like Davion Mitchell can be the starting pg at some point, or does he project more as a 6th man as he is now?
2. Have Mitchell and Haliburton gotten much run together, and if so, how have they looked together? Does it look like they could potentially be a starting 1-2 on a playoff team?
1. Does it look like Davion Mitchell can be the starting pg at some point, or does he project more as a 6th man as he is now?
2. Have Mitchell and Haliburton gotten much run together, and if so, how have they looked together? Does it look like they could potentially be a starting 1-2 on a playoff team?
The Pelicans certainly make sense as a trade partner - a bad team that might feel pressure to win now / thinks they could win now with a Zion / Fox combo. Getting a pick from them thinking they might make the playoffs and they could still end up bad. Might end up with one of the worst defenses in the league and if Zion doesn’t get healthy they’d remain pretty firmly in the basement. Of course I think we’re probably looking at top-3 protected at least but who knows.
Hornets, Celtics, Sixers, and Mavs are all built around guys they drafted 3rd or higher. Suns if you count Ayton. Hawks with Trae at 5th. Nets and Lakers built around guys who went top 3, including 3 #1 overall picks, even though they didn’t draft them. Knicks also had a top 3 w RJ Barrett but not sure he’s a centerpiece?
By my count 9 out of the 16 teams have at least one top 5 guy as a cornerstone, 7-8 of those teams with a top 3. So that’s roughly half the playoff teams built around top 3 picks
I don’t think there’s a set path of tanking to a top pick, or even hitting on that top pick, but there’s definitely strong evidence that hitting on a top 3 pick is one of the best ways to build a playoff team
By my count 9 out of the 16 teams have at least one top 5 guy as a cornerstone, 7-8 of those teams with a top 3. So that’s roughly half the playoff teams built around top 3 picks
I don’t think there’s a set path of tanking to a top pick, or even hitting on that top pick, but there’s definitely strong evidence that hitting on a top 3 pick is one of the best ways to build a playoff team
Bagley #2 Fox #5 Buddy #6. Mitchell #9. Barnes was the 7th pick in his class.
High draft choices matter but I stand by my original statement that none of those currently seeded in the playoffs tanked.
Being bad and selling off to be bad are two different things. And again, I’m not opposed to tanking but I don’t think it’s the golden ticket everyone seems to think it is.
High draft choices matter but I stand by my original statement that none of those currently seeded in the playoffs tanked.
Being bad and selling off to be bad are two different things. And again, I’m not opposed to tanking but I don’t think it’s the golden ticket everyone seems to think it is.
yup how about we try to actually build around the guy that we paid a bunch of money to who is still 2 years away from beginning his prime. That’s how you’re supposed to run a franchise you say?! How would I know? I’m just a Kangz fan
