Monte McNair’s Trade Deadline Strategy

#31
Curious if anyone listened to Monte’s interview with @carmichealdave? It was a well done interview by Dave and he asks multiple questions about the Kings strategy. The answer was basically we want to keep all our options open.

The problem is that approach isn’t a strategy. Strategy is about making choices and it’s clear the Kings have not made any. It is the hallmark of Vivek’s regime and why this organization has been so bad. Even if I disagreed with him I would prefer he say here is what we will do and what we won’t do.

Here is a good article on strategy and choices.

https://www.google.com/amp/business...ng-Choices-Michael-E-Porter/24-05-2017-118791
Monte seemed to be hinting at a strategy of collecting solid players on good contracts and waiting on an opportunity to flip those pieces for a high impact player. Houston didn't build through the draft and that doesn't seem to be McNairs intent here either.
 
#32
Building through the draft is tough with the HaliFox backcourt. They would have to be in on the tank - and I don’t think it would go over well. Having your backcourt set for a decade, solid players on declining contracts, Bags for sale, and all your picks isn’t a bad place to be going into the off season. And dudes are going to want to ball with HaliFox.

Rule #1 in today’s NBA - be a place players want to play.
 
#33
Not making a strategy is not a strategy. It’s muddling. Most people who study strategy will tell you what you choose not to do is as important as what you choose. Again listen to the interview. I think he actually is refreshingly candid.
Well, strategy seems to be: (i) build around the core (Fox/Halliburton for sure...) (ii) establish a sustained style of play and culture, (iii) collect "value" players/deals that contribute to that style of play and complement the core, (iv) remain flexible so we are ready to pounce when big opportunities arise. The strategy does not include dump veterans at the trade deadline for future assets, if it isn't considered appropriate "value" in his mind. I actually thought his interview was pretty clear. Nowhere did he say something that seemed delusional to me about the quality of the current roster. We're good enough to compete and grow. Clearly there are pieces you build around, but you don't offload everyone else just because.
 
#34
Curious if anyone listened to Monte’s interview with @carmichealdave? It was a well done interview by Dave and he asks multiple questions about the Kings strategy. The answer was basically we want to keep all our options open.

The problem is that approach isn’t a strategy. Strategy is about making choices and it’s clear the Kings have not made any. It is the hallmark of Vivek’s regime and why this organization has been so bad. Even if I disagreed with him I would prefer he say here is what we will do and what we won’t do.

Here is a good article on strategy and choices.

https://www.google.com/amp/business...ng-Choices-Michael-E-Porter/24-05-2017-118791
Or....he doesn't want to openly give his strategy away. This isn't Vlade we're talking to
 
#35
Well, strategy seems to be: (i) build around the core (Fox/Halliburton for sure...) (ii) establish a sustained style of play and culture, (iii) collect "value" players/deals that contribute to that style of play and complement the core, (iv) remain flexible so we are ready to pounce when big opportunities arise. The strategy does not include dump veterans at the trade deadline for future assets, if it isn't considered appropriate "value" in his mind. I actually thought his interview was pretty clear. Nowhere did he say something that seemed delusional to me about the quality of the current roster. We're good enough to compete and grow. Clearly there are pieces you build around, but you don't offload everyone else just because.
Oh I thought he was very clear. But he said keep all paths open multiple times.
 
#39
Not making a strategy is not a strategy. It’s muddling. Most people who study strategy will tell you what you choose not to do is as important as what you choose. Again listen to the interview. I think he actually is refreshingly candid.
Well, you’re wrong. But I’m not going to continue to argue how and why. You just disagree with the tactic. Which is fine.

And, again, I’m not even convinced it is even McNair’s strategy, which is the more important point. You’re taking the interview too literally. He’s not going to tell you anything of real substance and divulge his true intentions.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#41
I'll have to watch the interview, but I highly doubt Monte is going to reveal his actually strategy to CMD or anyone outside of his circle for that matter. He is a tight lipped dude. All you get out him is generalities and buzz words like optionality. Some GMs/Executives will be super open and straight forward (Theo Epstein for example) while others say a whole lot of nothing in interviews.
so you aren’t supposed to talk about how you actually had a better trade offer than the one you ended up taking at the press conference announcing the franchise-altering trade you did make?
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#42
Well, strategy seems to be: (i) build around the core (Fox/Halliburton for sure...) (ii) establish a sustained style of play and culture, (iii) collect "value" players/deals that contribute to that style of play and complement the core, (iv) remain flexible so we are ready to pounce when big opportunities arise. The strategy does not include dump veterans at the trade deadline for future assets, if it isn't considered appropriate "value" in his mind. I actually thought his interview was pretty clear. Nowhere did he say something that seemed delusional to me about the quality of the current roster. We're good enough to compete and grow. Clearly there are pieces you build around, but you don't offload everyone else just because.
Monte is very much a Morey disciple in that respect. Morey took over the T-Mac/Yao Rockets, lost both dudes to injury, maintained flexibility without ever tanking, and pounced on a Harden trade when the opportunity presented itself.
 
#43
I'm not sure what people expected McMair to say.

"We plan to trade Buddy Hield and Harrison Barnes in the following deals, re-sign Richaun Holmes at $9 million/year, and trade up in the draft for player X"?

Keeping all options open means exactly that. All options for building a better team. If they had a deal for Buddy that they thought would improve the Kings I'm sure he'd be gone already. I'm guessing they'd prefer to keep Barnes but would deal him for a solid return. McMair & co clearly shopped Bagley but we're rejected and probably only got really low-ball offers.

Keeping options open is exactly what Petrie did when he took a swing on Webber and signed Vlade. Same thing with dealing Corliss for Christie and JWill for Bibby.

If you can't swing the huge deal for a star you make incremental improvements everywhere you can.
 
#44
Keeping options open is exactly what Petrie did when he took a swing on Webber and signed Vlade. Same thing with dealing Corliss for Christie and JWill for Bibby.
That just can’t be. Because we’ve been told that keeping options open isn’t a strategy.
And surely Petrie wasn’t able to build that magnificent team w/o a strategy.

Something isn’t adding up right. :confused:

FWIW, I agree with you Funky.
 
#45
so you aren’t supposed to talk about how you actually had a better trade offer than the one you ended up taking at the press conference announcing the franchise-altering trade you did make?
yeah the pattern is the same.....

Step 1: Kings hire a GM who tells Vivek what he wants to hear that we are close.....

Step 2: team trades away draft picks for journeyman players who are supposed to improve the team <—- we are here again

Step 3: team finishes 9-12 from the bottom not significantly improving the talent or making the playoffs

Step 4: lone star talent leaves the team.
 
#46
yeah the pattern is the same.....

Step 1: Kings hire a GM who tells Vivek what he wants to hear that we are close.....

Step 2: team trades away draft picks for journeyman players who are supposed to improve the team <—- we are here again

Step 3: team finishes 9-12 from the bottom not significantly improving the talent or making the playoffs

Step 4: lone star talent leaves the team.
1. Kings hired on outside consulting firm to help with the hire.

2. Are you referring to the 2nd round picks used to acquire current first round talent?

3. Probably

4. The teams stars are under control of this club for another 5-8 years.
 
#48
1. Kings hired on outside consulting firm to help with the hire.

2. Are you referring to the 2nd round picks used to acquire current first round talent?

3. Probably

4. The teams stars are under control of this club for another 5-8 years.
Yeah and multiple candidates from Miami and Denver dropped out.

Not close to first round round talent but yes an improvement we didn’t dump 1st round picks this time.

since when has having “control” mattered in the NBA?
 
#49
This was not the time to try improve the team, going for a pointless 10th spot finish so you can try get into the playoffs cause of a gimmick system (since the Kings are not good enough to even sniff the 8th seed). The team is like 1-2 games better than the Thunder who is actively DEVELOPING it's really young talent and trying to lose with guys who probably should still be developing in the G-League if they were trying to win.

The moves made, made the Kings slightly less below average which is the last place you want to be.
 

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#50
Waive a perfect small ball F to sign the bleh that is is Damian Jones. I think Walton couldn't wait to sandbag the small ball that was working. We'll see how this works out but I'm not sure Monte knows much about what was working and why.
 
Last edited:
#51
This was not the time to try improve the team, going for a pointless 10th spot finish so you can try get into the playoffs cause of a gimmick system (since the Kings are not good enough to even sniff the 8th seed). The team is like 1-2 games better than the Thunder who is actively DEVELOPING it's really young talent and trying to lose with guys who probably should still be developing in the G-League if they were trying to win.

The moves made, made the Kings slightly less below average which is the last place you want to be.
This exactly. So you're telling me that this 22-28 squad (below .500) is supposed to be talented enough to make the playoffs, yet we're only 2 games ahead of an actively tanking OKC team? OKC literally has a Gleague roster out there. Look at their starting 5:

Theo Maldeon
Svi Mykhailiuk
Isaiah Roby
Aleksej Pokusevski
Moses Brown
 
#52
This exactly. So you're telling me that this 22-28 squad (below .500) is supposed to be talented enough to make the playoffs, yet we're only 2 games ahead of an actively tanking OKC team? OKC literally has a Gleague roster out there. Look at their starting 5:

Theo Maldeon
Svi Mykhailiuk
Isaiah Roby
Aleksej Pokusevski
Moses Brown
Not to mention the slew of first rounders they have.

2 games ahead of a team that featured SGA for 35 games, Horford for 28 games and Hill for 14 games while basically G League level players accounted for the rest of the minutes on the roster.

How is SGA for most the season, half a season of Horford and a quarter season of Hill only 2 games behind Fox, Haliburton, Holmes, Barnes and Hield who have all been relatively healthy?

Either they're luckier than we are or we have mismanaged or mismatched talent.

Personally I think it's both mismanaged and mismatched but I'd say it's 75% mismatched. There's just something wrong with these main pieces. Individually they're all alright but together they just aren't very good. I think it's because the team is so lopsided offensively with zero defense.

Hield is hopeless on defense. Haliburton is still learning his way. Put a screen on Fox and he's useless. Barnes' defense is average. Holmes is solid but the revolving door perimeter defense doesn't play to his strengths since he is not a great rim protector. This lineup just doesn't cut it.

They really need to trade Hield, keep Holmes but upgrade the starting center position and hope like hell that the BPA in the draft is a 2 way 6'8" wing that can rebound, play defense and keep up on offense. Otherwise I don't really see a realistic route to the playoffs minus some miraculous Haliburton improvement into the stratosphere.
 
#53
Not to mention the slew of first rounders they have.

2 games ahead of a team that featured SGA for 35 games, Horford for 28 games and Hill for 14 games while basically G League level players accounted for the rest of the minutes on the roster.

How is SGA for most the season, half a season of Horford and a quarter season of Hill only 2 games behind Fox, Haliburton, Holmes, Barnes and Hield who have all been relatively healthy?

Either they're luckier than we are or we have mismanaged or mismatched talent.

Personally I think it's both mismanaged and mismatched but I'd say it's 75% mismatched. There's just something wrong with these main pieces. Individually they're all alright but together they just aren't very good. I think it's because the team is so lopsided offensively with zero defense.

Hield is hopeless on defense. Haliburton is still learning his way. Put a screen on Fox and he's useless. Barnes' defense is average. Holmes is solid but the revolving door perimeter defense doesn't play to his strengths since he is not a great rim protector. This lineup just doesn't cut it.

They really need to trade Hield, keep Holmes but upgrade the starting center position and hope like hell that the BPA in the draft is a 2 way 6'8" wing that can rebound, play defense and keep up on offense. Otherwise I don't really see a realistic route to the playoffs minus some miraculous Haliburton improvement into the stratosphere.
Barnes and Buddy make like 50million + per season combined and help you win about as much as players that make 5-10million per season. I was shocked when people were not prepared to trade Barnes for a pick cause we might not draft a better player than him. You could find plenty of lesser names who will help you more, hell Shumpert in complete decline along with Bjelica helped carry the Kings to 500. or near it with a young Fox before the Kings again went "all in" to fail.
 
#54
Barnes and Buddy make like 50million + per season combined and help you win about as much as players that make 5-10million per season. I was shocked when people were not prepared to trade Barnes for a pick cause we might not draft a better player than him. You could find plenty of lesser names who will help you more, hell Shumpert in complete decline along with Bjelica helped carry the Kings to 500. or near it with a young Fox before the Kings again went "all in" to fail.
Barnes is such an enigma. Passes the eye test to most everyone but the analytics say year in and year out that he's just an okay player and doesn't impact the game as much as it seems when watching him.
 
#55
Not to mention the slew of first rounders they have.

2 games ahead of a team that featured SGA for 35 games, Horford for 28 games and Hill for 14 games while basically G League level players accounted for the rest of the minutes on the roster.

How is SGA for most the season, half a season of Horford and a quarter season of Hill only 2 games behind Fox, Haliburton, Holmes, Barnes and Hield who have all been relatively healthy?

Either they're luckier than we are or we have mismanaged or mismatched talent.

Personally I think it's both mismanaged and mismatched but I'd say it's 75% mismatched. There's just something wrong with these main pieces. Individually they're all alright but together they just aren't very good. I think it's because the team is so lopsided offensively with zero defense.

Hield is hopeless on defense. Haliburton is still learning his way. Put a screen on Fox and he's useless. Barnes' defense is average. Holmes is solid but the revolving door perimeter defense doesn't play to his strengths since he is not a great rim protector. This lineup just doesn't cut it.

They really need to trade Hield, keep Holmes but upgrade the starting center position and hope like hell that the BPA in the draft is a 2 way 6'8" wing that can rebound, play defense and keep up on offense. Otherwise I don't really see a realistic route to the playoffs minus some miraculous Haliburton improvement into the stratosphere.
Agreed. With this veteran team, we should've had a much better record than a team like the Thunder. I think when it comes down to it, we're missing individual talents. They are just not good enough to win. You did a good job breaking down the guys. Fox's recent emergence is great because he solidifies the fact that we FINALLY have a #1 scorer since trading Cousins. However with that, I think in order for this team to be competitive, we need 1 more star and a lot of defensive discipline or good coaching. With this team, I'd probably only keep Fox, Haliburton, and Barnes. But make no mistake, I'd trade Barnes instantly if we were offered a 1st rounder or a young player with good potential and production. I'm hesitant to replace him because the talent pool is extremely limited on 6'8 3&D players.

Looking ahead to the draft, we're most likely not landing a top 5 pick. In the 8-13 range, unless you can get a player who flashes franchise potential, the Kings, I don't think we can afford to draft any raw prospects like Isaiah Jackson or Kai Jones. We need day 1 contributors who actually fit what the team needs.

We also need defensive minded players. Almost everyone on our team is bad at defense. It's definitely a culture and coaching thing. Players haven't bought into playing defense, which is why I think some of them need to go, even if they aren't the primary problem.
 
#56
Barnes is such an enigma. Passes the eye test to most everyone but the analytics say year in and year out that he's just an okay player and doesn't impact the game as much as it seems when watching him.
Guys like Dorian Finney Smith, Derrick Jones Jr and Kendrich Williams impact the game as much if not more than Barnes with just hustle alone and also give you cap space to sign a actual good player the same goes for Buddy unless he's on a team where he never touches the ball unless it's to shoot.

He not an enigma he's a overpaid player who does not help you win and never has he's basically a smaller Jeff Green another legend in this regard of appearing to be a quality player while tanking team after team.

Replace Barnes with old-Joe Inglis on this team and its a 6-8 seed.
 
Last edited:
#57
Agreed. With this veteran team, we should've had a much better record than a team like the Thunder. I think when it comes down to it, we're missing individual talents. They are just not good enough to win. You did a good job breaking down the guys. Fox's recent emergence is great because he solidifies the fact that we FINALLY have a #1 scorer since trading Cousins. However with that, I think in order for this team to be competitive, we need 1 more star and a lot of defensive discipline or good coaching. With this team, I'd probably only keep Fox, Haliburton, and Barnes. But make no mistake, I'd trade Barnes instantly if we were offered a 1st rounder or a young player with good potential and production. I'm hesitant to replace him because the talent pool is extremely limited on 6'8 3&D players.

Looking ahead to the draft, we're most likely not landing a top 5 pick. In the 8-13 range, unless you can get a player who flashes franchise potential, the Kings, I don't think we can afford to draft any raw prospects like Isaiah Jackson or Kai Jones. We need day 1 contributors who actually fit what the team needs.

We also need defensive minded players. Almost everyone on our team is bad at defense. It's definitely a culture and coaching thing. Players haven't bought into playing defense, which is why I think some of them need to go, even if they aren't the primary problem.
We had the chance with Boston and passed on it. Their pick would have been a decent pick and Nesmith worth a gamble. But we wanted to “win”.
 
#58
Agreed. With this veteran team, we should've had a much better record than a team like the Thunder. I think when it comes down to it, we're missing individual talents. They are just not good enough to win. You did a good job breaking down the guys. Fox's recent emergence is great because he solidifies the fact that we FINALLY have a #1 scorer since trading Cousins. However with that, I think in order for this team to be competitive, we need 1 more star and a lot of defensive discipline or good coaching. With this team, I'd probably only keep Fox, Haliburton, and Barnes. But make no mistake, I'd trade Barnes instantly if we were offered a 1st rounder or a young player with good potential and production. I'm hesitant to replace him because the talent pool is extremely limited on 6'8 3&D players.

Looking ahead to the draft, we're most likely not landing a top 5 pick. In the 8-13 range, unless you can get a player who flashes franchise potential, the Kings, I don't think we can afford to draft any raw prospects like Isaiah Jackson or Kai Jones. We need day 1 contributors who actually fit what the team needs.

We also need defensive minded players. Almost everyone on our team is bad at defense. It's definitely a culture and coaching thing. Players haven't bought into playing defense, which is why I think some of them need to go, even if they aren't the primary problem.
We need to draft the best talent available.