Potential Free agent/trade/sign tracker
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
Unless Kuz created his own stat, or GM's are out on the typical advanced mumbo jumbo what could it be? Maybe there are like some things that are like, on a Wednesday he's elite when exactly 14 ft from the hoop stuff but that's so far into the weeds it's ridiculous haha. Even is his raptor totals put him in the underwhelming category. The only thing I can see is he's not completely terrible at anything, he's fairly productive in the right role, and his athletic gifts are something you can actually see. He can run, he can jump, he can handle, but what he ends up doing with it doesn't appear to show up in team wins, or upper echelon personal league stat totals. Hisl defensive rating last year was good, but individual rating stats are garbage. Too many players defensive rating stats jump from Elite to 100 spot lower from year to year. That shows it's not reliable.
Maybe, but all we keep hearing is about the stats that matter and the numbers aren't jiving. Again, no doubt advanced stats in a lot of ways are for people who don't have the eye for talent to balance the field when it comes to trying to understand talent. I also personally think that Kidd was an idiot the way he used Wood. Even when the Kings played them it's like, why aren't they playing Wood here, they are much scarier with him than without.
As for Luka he also kind of froze out KP at times so that might be a thing against slow skinny bigs I don't know haha.
As for Luka he also kind of froze out KP at times so that might be a thing against slow skinny bigs I don't know haha.
Yes, really. If he is nothing but an excellent off-screen/spot-up shooter he will be vastly more useful to the Kings offense than Kuzma.
Kuzma has a career TS% of .545, and he's never once had a season where he recorded .550 - and for that he's accustomed to getting almost a 24% usage rate (never under 20%)! For reference, the Kings' offense last year for the TEAM had a TS% of .608, and no rotation player was under .545. Outside of Davion, the closest rotation player was Monk at .587. Davion was exactly at .545, and we all know how we felt about Davion's offense. Kyle Kuzma is Davion on offense, except he takes almost twice as many shots. Yes, let's sink our offense with that guy.
Kuzma's defensive numbers are fine, but they're not that special. So if you're going to give out something like 4/$80M to a guy who has proven over six years to be not-at-all-good on offense, and whose defensive numbers don't scream superstar, then there better be something that we don't know.
I'll take the shooter at a third of the price. I know how to fit him into the offense, and I'm damn sure I want him taking more shots than good ol' Five-Forty-Five.
Kuzma has a career TS% of .545, and he's never once had a season where he recorded .550 - and for that he's accustomed to getting almost a 24% usage rate (never under 20%)! For reference, the Kings' offense last year for the TEAM had a TS% of .608, and no rotation player was under .545. Outside of Davion, the closest rotation player was Monk at .587. Davion was exactly at .545, and we all know how we felt about Davion's offense. Kyle Kuzma is Davion on offense, except he takes almost twice as many shots. Yes, let's sink our offense with that guy.
Kuzma's defensive numbers are fine, but they're not that special. So if you're going to give out something like 4/$80M to a guy who has proven over six years to be not-at-all-good on offense, and whose defensive numbers don't scream superstar, then there better be something that we don't know.
I'll take the shooter at a third of the price. I know how to fit him into the offense, and I'm damn sure I want him taking more shots than good ol' Five-Forty-Five.
I agree entirely, but good defense is good defense. When Anthony Davis was brought in the value of Kuzma's ability to score plummeted. As a young player on a now contending team, who hadn't offered much else, he very easily could have found himself out of the rotation, but picked it up pretty heavily on the defensive end which is what allowed him to maintain value. Playing next to Anthony Davis isn't what turned him into a good defender during those years, it was probably some sort of acceptance mixed with desperation. If we take him on we need to hope Mike Brown can help him hit that gear again.
Nah, that's too much of a boomer take for me.
It's always been about a marriage of the two. Stat nerds often take it too far one way where only the spreadsheets matter and the film bros think the stat nerds should be shoved in lockers or watch the games. My stance since I really started in basketball eval is to find eye-popping numbers and then turn on the film to see if that lines up with the numbers. Obviously, stats aren't going to catch every single player in every single situation. But more often than not, if he pops in a bunch of metrics, he's going to pop on film. And equally so if his numbers are bad.
FWIW, my stats buddy who created the LEBRON stat thinks Kuz's defense is way overrated and we'd be better off keeping continuity with HB since we know he works in our offense. And he's waaaay deeper in the stat nerd circles than basically everyone on twitter. He's the one creating them.
It's always been about a marriage of the two. Stat nerds often take it too far one way where only the spreadsheets matter and the film bros think the stat nerds should be shoved in lockers or watch the games. My stance since I really started in basketball eval is to find eye-popping numbers and then turn on the film to see if that lines up with the numbers. Obviously, stats aren't going to catch every single player in every single situation. But more often than not, if he pops in a bunch of metrics, he's going to pop on film. And equally so if his numbers are bad.
FWIW, my stats buddy who created the LEBRON stat thinks Kuz's defense is way overrated and we'd be better off keeping continuity with HB since we know he works in our offense. And he's waaaay deeper in the stat nerd circles than basically everyone on twitter. He's the one creating them.
Which is why we should be working a trade to bring in a high level defender. That's where we would actually get our money's worth next year. The idea that we have this money so we need to spend it on somebody terrible because we're going to lose it if we don't is insane. The worst thing we could do right now is saddle ourselves with a long-term contract for a player who is not helping us win.
I also don't understand how we'd be capped out next year even with a Sabonis extension and roughly $7.5 million per year for Vezenkov. If the cap goes up to $149 million for 2024-2025 (a 10% increase over 2023-2024) wouldn't we have roughly the same amount of cap space next summer as we have this summer? If Domas makes what Fox does ($34.8 million) and we add $7.5 million for Vezenkov we're only up to $109 million We have early bird rights on Monk so that's a cap hold of about $13 million which leaves $27 million in cap space. If Domas gets the reported $30 million per instead we would have $31.8 million in cap space.
I also don't understand how we'd be capped out next year even with a Sabonis extension and roughly $7.5 million per year for Vezenkov. If the cap goes up to $149 million for 2024-2025 (a 10% increase over 2023-2024) wouldn't we have roughly the same amount of cap space next summer as we have this summer? If Domas makes what Fox does ($34.8 million) and we add $7.5 million for Vezenkov we're only up to $109 million We have early bird rights on Monk so that's a cap hold of about $13 million which leaves $27 million in cap space. If Domas gets the reported $30 million per instead we would have $31.8 million in cap space.
Well, this is kind of my point, then you might want to consider the value of a player like Kuz then because these stats aren't backing up much. I agree stats have their place and balance between that and what you actually see is the key. There is a limit to it however. Stats are a RESULT not necessarily a cause so I have no problem with stats with that in mind but in the end, if you watch the game, you'll still see it in real time. Now with tracking 30 teams and hundreds of players obviously result oriented stats are a huge time saver. Some of these super stats and how they're followed are a turning more into projection setters and are so situational that any stat scientist would throw some of them out. Like I said, from one season to another some players defensive rating varied from like over a 100-200 spots. Really? That's reliable, yeah... sure. Besides, the game isn't played 1 on 1 so stats that weigh that too heavily also lack context.
It depends on what we're talking about. With younger players you're often looking at the process more than the results to predict how they might develop. So in many ways you're missing the big picture there if you're only looking at the stats. There isn't enough data yet to form an accurate prediction of their career performance nor have I seen anyone come up with a reliable methodology for predicting growth curves. With veteran players this can also be true as a lot of statistics are team-dependent... Are they a ballhandler or do they need someone else to set them up? Who are they passing to and who is passing to them? What types of plays are being run? Etc. There's a deep well of contextual information which doesn't show up even in the advanced stats.
On the flip-side of that though, the eye test is not reliable for a lot of important criteria that involve production over time unless you're watching every player every single minute of every game and you have a photographic memory to store and recall all of that information on command. I don't know anybody who has that kind of time or brain power to devote solely to tracking basketball players. Even if I'm trying to watch as a scout rather than a fan, I'm likely to focus on a game where somebody shot the lights out or pulled down 20 rebounds and form a false impression of their overall ability. If the actual data shows that they're a poor rebounder or a poor shooter over the course of multiple seasons than my eye test is just objectively wrong. For that kind of information I feel like the stats are the only thing worth looking at.
On the flip-side of that though, the eye test is not reliable for a lot of important criteria that involve production over time unless you're watching every player every single minute of every game and you have a photographic memory to store and recall all of that information on command. I don't know anybody who has that kind of time or brain power to devote solely to tracking basketball players. Even if I'm trying to watch as a scout rather than a fan, I'm likely to focus on a game where somebody shot the lights out or pulled down 20 rebounds and form a false impression of their overall ability. If the actual data shows that they're a poor rebounder or a poor shooter over the course of multiple seasons than my eye test is just objectively wrong. For that kind of information I feel like the stats are the only thing worth looking at.
Newsflash - you are not going to get a superstar on $20m per season contract in today's NBA. Just ain't happening.
On Vezenko - he is not going to be nearly as featured on Kings offense as he has been with Olympiacos. They designed the entire offense around him. That is not going to be the case here. If anything he is a Bjelica level player with a LOT less creativity and passing.
People are painting this guy into some sort of high impact type player. He is going to be a good role player for us but that is the extent of it. He cannot create for himself or others. A player that is really really good at what he does well but average to below average at the rest of the game. Good rebounder too.
On Vezenko - he is not going to be nearly as featured on Kings offense as he has been with Olympiacos. They designed the entire offense around him. That is not going to be the case here. If anything he is a Bjelica level player with a LOT less creativity and passing.
People are painting this guy into some sort of high impact type player. He is going to be a good role player for us but that is the extent of it. He cannot create for himself or others. A player that is really really good at what he does well but average to below average at the rest of the game. Good rebounder too.
Exactly. It really depends on context. Like shot charts are super valuable IMO. Data about areas on the floor are also dependent sometimes on scenario but can give you a pretty good picture. Things like 5 man team stats I like a lot. Things like 2 man stats? 3 man? Skim over them, fine, but use them for almost NOTHING, lol.
Why would you think I said that? I'm not remotely asking to get a superstar on a $20M contract. I'm simply asking to not spend $20M on a player who is by many available statistics worse than league average and who would likely drag down our offense - particularly when there are other potential options for that $20M who are better than league average players and at least one of whom (Barnes) has already proven to work within our offense and is a great team leader.
If the Kings are going to sign someone to a contract averaging over $22 million a year, I would like them to target either Cam Johnson or Jerami Grant. Then use some of what is left to sign Thomas Bryant ( maybe 3 years at $22 million). That would help plug a couple holes while also helping our defense.
Herb Jones is not available but Stan.Helsing is trying so hard to speak it into existence. 
There is some talk of the Pelicans wanting to move on from Jonas Valanciunas. I am guessing the Cavs would want Herb Jones in addition to Jonas to part with Jarrett Allen. It would be a shame if the Kings FO let that happen, i.e., let Herb go to Cleveland in such a deal, without making a play for him themselves.
You have me figured wrong. I do not love Herb... love seeing lineups/rosters that have a perfect amount of what I consider title-winning balance.
Fox, Herbert, Murray, Cam, Sabonis
Fox, Huerter/Monk, Herbert, Murray/Cam, Sabonis
Being able to use both of the above lineups... can you tell me how the Kings can improve on that with players who are reasonably get-able? I am of the opinion that this group of players listed above is very close to the Nuggets.
Fox, Sabonis and Monk provide the play-making. Huerter/Monk, Murray and Cam provide the spacing. Herbert provides the defense while also being a decent three-point shooter and connector on offense. It will lack slightly on rebounding but that's about it... you can't have everything when your FO made a mess in some previous drafts.
Strangely or coincidentally enough, this year's #24 pick looks like he might have paired nicely with Murray and Sabonis in the front-court (although he will need time to get there), if it was not traded away.
Fox, Herbert, Murray, Cam, Sabonis
Fox, Huerter/Monk, Herbert, Murray/Cam, Sabonis
Being able to use both of the above lineups... can you tell me how the Kings can improve on that with players who are reasonably get-able? I am of the opinion that this group of players listed above is very close to the Nuggets.
Fox, Sabonis and Monk provide the play-making. Huerter/Monk, Murray and Cam provide the spacing. Herbert provides the defense while also being a decent three-point shooter and connector on offense. It will lack slightly on rebounding but that's about it... you can't have everything when your FO made a mess in some previous drafts.
Strangely or coincidentally enough, this year's #24 pick looks like he might have paired nicely with Murray and Sabonis in the front-court (although he will need time to get there), if it was not traded away.
Last edited:
What about PJ Washington? Only 24 years, good 3pt shooter, he can play with Sabonis as our starting PF but also play the C backup role next to Lyles or Vezenkov. He isn't very tall (6'8) but has a long wingspan (7'3) and has provided good interior defense the previous years averaging a block per game with Charlotte.