Monte and Trades - Split off from Davion Thread

[The_Jamal]

I just did

-If you can avoid your franchise player hitting UFA, you do exactly what we just did. I agree, it's a hefty price, but it also locked in one of the most talented players Sacramento has ever had long-term. A guy we basically will never get an opportunity to sign as a UFA to come here. That has value, even if it is a hefty price.

-How was TD a waste? A back-end rotation player for 2 seasons for a 2nd round pick? How many 2nd round picks even log 500+ minutes in their career? Much less impact a

-Tillman is you using hindsight over Woodard. None of us have any idea who or what 2nds actually will pop into good rotation players, as much as we arm-chair GMs like to pretend. The theory of Woodard (big wing), was correct. Something you say Monte should be prioritizing. And even still, Memphis just flipped him for a 2027 2nd and a 2030 2nd lol. Not exactly an insane return for a guy you say Monte took a huge loss on.

-Jaden Hardy, I agree. I was there with you, we should have taken him at 37. But he's not exactly lighting the world on fire either with nearly 100 games under his belt:

52% TS
23.7% USG
36.9% 3
15.3% Ast

8.2 PPG
1.7 APG
2.0 RPG

Like.. ok? I think i'd rather take how Keon is developing over how Hardy is developing.

 

[sactowndog]

Let me get this straight. You’re saying that if Monte would have traded Barnes, the Kings would have automatically had a worse record and at worst would’ve gotten the 8th pick. Am I understanding your argument correctly?

If they traded Barnes they would have lost at least 1 more game. Likely the one where Barnes hits a miracle 3 to win the game. 1 more loss would have given them the 8 pick (we tied Chicago).

 

[sactowndog]

-If you can avoid your franchise player hitting UFA, you do exactly what we just did. I agree, it's a hefty price, but it also locked in one of the most talented players Sacramento has ever had long-term. A guy we basically will never get an opportunity to sign as a UFA to come here. That has value, even if it is a hefty price.

I think using space to find a defensive wing was more important than signing Sabonis. Sabonis demand in the league was going to be less high than many think as he is not your archetype rim protecting center. People like Ainge were not going to offer him.

-How was TD a waste? A back-end rotation player for 2 seasons for a 2nd round pick? How many 2nd round picks even log 500+ minutes in their career?
2 seasons and out of the league with no offers. If your strength is drafting better to take a shot at someone.

-Tillman is you using hindsight over Woodard. None of us have any idea who or what 2nds actually will pop into good rotation players, as much as we arm-chair GMs like to pretend. The theory of Woodard (big wing), was correct. Something you say Monte should be prioritizing. And even still, Memphis just flipped him for a 2027 2nd and a 2030 2nd lol. Not exactly an insane return for a guy you say Monte took a huge loss on.
Was again a trade for someone out of the league today. If you trade for someone and two years later they are out of the league I consider it a bad trade. Not at the level of not trading Barnes when he had value bad but still a con.

-Jaden Hardy, I agree. I was there with you, we should have taken him at 37. But he's not exactly lighting the world on fire either with nearly 100 games under his belt:
He was an asset versus cash

52% TS
23.7% USG
36.9% 3
15.3% Ast

8.2 PPG
1.7 APG
2.0 RPG

Like.. ok? I think i'd rather take how Keon is developing over how Hardy is developing.
we had room for both and I like Keon also

See comments.

 

[The_Jamal]

If they traded Barnes they would have lost at least 1 more game. Likely the one where Barnes hits a miracle 3 to win the game. 1 more loss would have given them the 8 pick (we tied Chicago).

But you also don't know that for sure. You're acting like it's a forgone conclusion we would have been in the 8 slot, stayed in the 8 slot and no other changes in the lotto would have happened. Maybe we move up, maybe a bunch of other different teams move up? What if some other team that moved ahead of us drafts Franz way earlier? Just another timeline worth of possibilities to consider there.

You're being very results based on the Woodard trade. If anything, shows his trading acumen. Instead of drafting Woodard at 35, he got the guy he wanted and an additional 2nd round pick for moving back 5 slots. That's smart and what we want our GM doing.

Sure, Tillman hit and Woodard was a bust, but are you going to put it on all the other GM's "missing" on the 35th overall pick? It's like saying all 14 GM's who passed on Giannis should be fired forever. Or every team that passed on Jokic should be fired forever. We don't even know if Tillman was on our board, for starters. Just because it was our "pick" doesn't mean we traded Tillman. We traded the draft slot to get the guy we wanted. Big difference.

 

[TheMobb]

If they traded Barnes they would have lost at least 1 more game. Likely the one where Barnes hits a miracle 3 to win the game. 1 more loss would have given them the 8 pick (we tied Chicago).

So your argument is based on an assumption. This is not how reality works, anything could have happened if they traded Barnes. The Kings minus Barnes does not mean they would have a worse record automatically, that gives an opportunity to another guy who’s fighting for his career/contract. Who are they getting for Barnes? A change in the Kings record also changes the number of lottery balls, they could have ended up anywhere from 1-14, etc. Too many factors to formulate your argument on this…

 

[sactowndog]

But you also don't know that for sure. You're acting like it's a forgone conclusion we would have been in the 8 slot, stayed in the 8 slot and no other changes in the lotto would have happened. Maybe we move up, maybe a bunch of other different teams move up? What if some other team that moved ahead of us drafts Franz way earlier? Just another timeline worth of possibilities to consider there.

You're being very results based on the Woodard trade. If anything, shows his trading acumen. Instead of drafting Woodard at 35, he got the guy he wanted and an additional 2nd round pick for moving back 5 slots. That's smart and what we want our GM doing.

Sure, Tillman hit and Woodard was a bust, but are you going to put it on all the other GM's "missing" on the 35th overall pick? It's like saying all 14 GM's who passed on Giannis should be fired forever. Or every team that passed on Jokic should be fired forever. We don't even know if Tillman was on our board, for starters. Just because it was our "pick" doesn't mean we traded Tillman. We traded the draft slot to get the guy we wanted. Big difference.

We were tied with Chicago. 1 more loss puts us in the 8th spot and neither us nor Chicago moved up. If Barnes doesn’t hit that 40 ft game winner we have the 8th spot where Orlando took Wagner. Nothing is certain as maybe it goes to Bjelicia and he hits it. But Barnes played well that year and trading likely causes us 1 game.

okay fair point on the Woodard pick. I agree with your logic. Better to look at that under drafts acumen.

 

[TheMobb]

[

We were tied with Chicago. 1 more loss puts us in the 8th spot and neither us nor Chicago moved up. If Barnes doesn’t hit that 40 ft game winner we have the 8th spot where Orlando took Wagner. Nothing is certain as maybe it goes to Bjelicia and he hits it. But Barnes played well that year and trading likely causes us 1 game.

okay fair point on the Woodard pick. I agree with your logic. Better to look at that under drafts acumen.

I don’t think you’re comprehending this. You can’t change reality, then in hindsight apply what happened after the fact to that alternate reality. Ever heard of the butterfly effect?

 

[captain bill]

jesus. What part of skill in trading is not clear to you all!

You're starting with a false premise - that Monte is a "guy planning to build via trades" - and I see no reason to engage with that limited goalpost-moving view

 

[sactowndog]

[


I don’t think you’re comprehending this. You can’t change reality, then in hindsight apply what happened after the fact to that alternate reality. Ever heard of the butterfly effect?

you can make whatever caveats you want but Barnes was a significant contributor that year. The odds of removing him and winning the same number of games is remote.

 

[sactowndog]

You're starting with a false premise - that Monte is a "guy planning to build via trades" - and I see no reason to engage with that limited goalpost-moving view

I’m not making any premise. Another person stated that and I said why would he do what he is not good at. And of course the defend Kings at all cost crowd started in on how he was a skilled trader. And so here we are……

accusing me of stating a false premise is moving the goal posts where I have tried to keep the analysis out of draft picks etc……

many of the same people attacking me now are the same group that went after me when I said, before Vlade was fired and the Luka fiasco, we had enough data to be clear Vlade was a poor draft evaluator. :-/

 

[TheMobb]

you can make whatever caveats you want but Barnes was a significant contributor that year. The odds of removing him and winning the same number of games is remote.

I’m not making any caveats lol you are 100% making assumptions then just going with whatever reality you want. If Barnes is not on the team, that changes the landscape for all teams not just the Kings. The lotto order would completely change so there’s no way you can assume the Kings would be number 8 at worst and would have gotten Kuminga or Wagner. And your logic is to subtract the game winner Barnes hit to break the tiebreaker for 9th when none of that even happens if Barnes gets traded. It’s laughable. And who did the Kings get for Barnes and what happened to their production? Or do you just subtract Barnes production and replace it with nothing?

 

[sactowndog]

I’m not making any caveats lol you are 100% making assumptions then just going with whatever reality you want. If Barnes is not on the team, that changes the landscape for all teams not just the Kings. The lotto order would completely change so there’s no way you can assume the Kings would be number 8 at worst and would have gotten Kuminga or Wagner. And your logic is to subtract the game winner Barnes hit to break the tiebreaker for 9th when none of that even happens if Barnes gets traded. It’s laughable. And who did the Kings get for Barnes and what happened to their production? Or do you just subtract Barnes production and replace it with nothing?

very unlikely since it was at the all-star break and you are only talking ~38 games left. The Kings would have gotten a first and Aaron Nesmith who was not playing at all at the time. If you don’t think substituting Nesmith for Barnes would cause us to lose more games, I don’t know what to tell you.

Now to your point the Celtics lost to the Bulls twice and those could have been switched to a Bulls loss which would mean the Kings would have had to lose 3. But again substituting one of your better players for someone not even playing makes that highly likely.

 

[Section 101]

very unlikely since it was at the all-star break and you are only talking ~38 games left. The Kings would have gotten a first and Aaron Nesmith who was not playing at all at the time. If you don’t think substituting Nesmith for Barnes would cause us to lose more games, I don’t know what to tell you.

Now to your point the Celtics lost to the Bulls twice and those could have been switched to a Bulls loss which would mean the Kings would have had to lose 3. But again substituting one of your better players for someone not even playing makes that highly likely.

Even a coke machine can come in for their first few games play way above their normal level.

 

[SacTownKid]

Monte had assets in Bogdan he let walk. He had all his first round picks, he had many 2nd round picks, he had Barnes he could have traded, he had cap room he could have sold. The cupboard was not bare. It was lean but he squandered the assets he did have in a quixotic attempt to make the play-offs when we weren’t close. Now granted Vivek contributed to that but part of the GM job is managing your owner.

Bogdan was a problem Monte couldn't really do anything about. Monte actually did try and get a sign and trade deal at least. The smart thing to do was get what they could have for Bogdan at the previous deadline but Monte wasn't even here.

 

[SacTownKid]

The only thing I can really look at Monte as kind of a whiff was the way he handled the pre draft process in the Keegan year. Now, Monte very well could have done everything he could to draw something out of the Pistons but Monte worked out 1 guy, went to dinner with 1 prospect. He showed his cards. I still think you play that way closer to the vest and see what you can extract out of Detroit and STILL get Keegan. A pick swap and Grant I think was doable with what Grant went for like the second Monte exposed his cards, hahaha. As soon as Monte did that the Pistons started moving on with their plan. Again, Monte might have negotiated hard with the Pistons to no avail but all we know is Monte showed those cards and Grant was dealt for scraps soon after.

 

[TheMobb]

very unlikely since it was at the all-star break and you are only talking ~38 games left. The Kings would have gotten a first and Aaron Nesmith who was not playing at all at the time. If you don’t think substituting Nesmith for Barnes would cause us to lose more games, I don’t know what to tell you.

Now to your point the Celtics lost to the Bulls twice and those could have been switched to a Bulls loss which would mean the Kings would have had to lose 3. But again substituting one of your better players for someone not even playing makes that highly likely.

Wow. There is no tiebreaker to break if Barnes is traded. How do you not get this? Also Nesmith and a 1st was a deal that was rumored, we don’t know how real that is. Another assumption. Are you not getting that if the Kings have a different record the number of lotto balls changes not only for them but for all teams? So the order of picks and the players picked would be completely different? This is my last post on this subject holy crap

 

[sactowndog]

Wow. There is no tiebreaker to break if Barnes is traded. How do you not get this? Also Nesmith and a 1st was a deal that was rumored, we don’t know how real that is. Another assumption. Are you not getting that if the Kings have a different record the number of lotto balls changes not only for them but for all teams? So the order of picks and the players picked would be completely different? This is my last post on this subject holy crap

first off if the Kings lose one more game and the Bulls/Pels don’t lotto balls only change for the Kings, Pels and the Bulls/Magic because they split the balls it only changes marginally. As the 8, 9, 10 picks the odds in that lotto model of change was small. The picks and teams before them would be unlikely to change with the only exception being Kings, Bulls and Pelicans. Everyone else was too far away.

also I know for a fact the trade was on the table … not an assumption as stated earlier.

 

[sactowndog]

Bogdan was a problem Monte couldn't really do anything about. Monte actually did try and get a sign and trade deal at least. The smart thing to do was get what they could have for Bogdan at the previous deadline but Monte wasn't even here.

Refresh my memory. Who gave Buddy his extension. Was it Vlade or Monte?

 

[sactowndog]

Even a coke machine can come in for their first few games play way above their normal level.

you obviously didn’t follow the Celtics much at that time. Nesmith at that moment was a coke machine.

 

[SacTownKid]

Refresh my memory. Who gave Buddy his extension. Was it Vlade or Monte?

Vlade. The issue of Bogdan and Buddy was a long standing one. If Monte re-signed Bogdan without at least getting rid of Buddy it would have been a bad move. One of them had to go, Bogdan was a FA so it was what it was.

 

[Section 101]

Refresh my memory. Who gave Buddy his extension. Was it Vlade or Monte?

Vlade, he should have let him hit restricted FA and not overpay against yourself.

 

[sactowndog]

Vlade. The issue of Bogdan and Buddy was a long standing one. If Monte re-signed Bogdan without at least getting rid of Buddy it would have been a bad move. One of them had to go, Bogdan was a FA so it was what it was.

fair but, as I said at the time, you should have gotten at least a TPE for him.

 

[TheMobb]

first off if the Kings lose one more game and the Bulls/Pels don’t lotto balls only change for the Kings, Pels and the Bulls/Magic because they split the balls it only changes marginally. As the 8, 9, 10 picks the odds in that lotto model of change was small. The picks and teams before them would be unlikely to change with the only exception being Kings, Bulls and Pelicans. Everyone else was too far away.

also I know for a fact the trade was on the table … not an assumption as stated earlier.

You are so fixated on this tiebreaker try to step out your box for a minute. If the Kings traded Barnes as you said at the deadline that year for Nesmith and a 1st, they would be a worse team by a decent margin right? Therefore they would very likely not be in a tiebreaker situation for 8/9/10 and probably be in the 5/6/7 range. This changes the odds for every team in the lottery. So no you can’t subtract Barnes and say the Kings would have lost at least 1 more game to win the tiebreaker and end up with the 7th or 8th pick to get Kuminga or Wagner because none of this plays out as it did if the Kings go thru with that deal.

 

[The_Jamal]

Vlade. The issue of Bogdan and Buddy was a long standing one. If Monte re-signed Bogdan without at least getting rid of Buddy it would have been a bad move. One of them had to go, Bogdan was a FA so it was what it was.

Monte also did have a trade with Bog and it got blown up because Bogi screwed us with the leak

 

[Tetsujin]

Monte also did have a trade with Bog and it got blown up because Bogi screwed us with the leak

If I were Monte, I would have merely not had Bogi leak the Bucks trade AND also have convinced the Lakers to trade Kuzma and KCP for Buddy instead of Russell Westbrook.

 

[gunks]

I don't agree with him, but I gotta admire sactowndog pretty much going against everyone in the thread in a calm and measured fashion.

It's pretty rare these days (especially online) to have civil discourse rather than childish arguments!

Hopefully Monte can win him over one day, because that would mean the Kings are truly kicking butt with how high his standards are*!

*and there's nothing wrong with having high standards either, although I'll be the first to admit mine have dropped precipitously after the abomination of the Pete to Vlade era.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I feel like I'm holding Monte above the standard Geoff Petrie set. Geoff was hired in 1994 and it took until 99 (ok let's call it 98 though games weren't played in fall of 98 - but 5 NBA seasons) for the Kings to become a perennial playoff team.

Monte is only in his 4th year and it feels like we are in year 2 of being a team built for long term success. Some people expect us to be at the 2002 level Kings already. It took 4 seasons with Vlade/Webber/Peja and Coach Adelman to get to that magical 01-02 season.

 

[gunks]

I feel like I'm holding Monte above the standard Geoff Petrie set. Geoff was hired in 1994 and it took until 99 (ok let's call it 98 though games weren't played in fall of 98 - but 5 NBA seasons) for the Kings to become a perennial playoff team.

Monte is only in his 4th year and it feels like we are in year 2 of being a team built for long term success. Some people expect us to be at the 2002 level Kings already. It took 4 seasons with Vlade/Webber/Peja and Coach Adelman to get to that magical 01-02 season.

We live in the age of instant gratification for sure. I remember people were calling for Monte's head after his first summer here. And what did Vlade leave him to work with? Fox, HB, 2 flawed sub-all star SGs, a late lotto pick and terrible coaching.

Let Monte cook, and let this roster grow together with continuity!

 

[SacTownKid]

I don't agree with him, but I gotta admire sactowndog pretty much going against everyone in the thread in a calm and measured fashion.

It's pretty rare these days (especially online) to have civil discourse rather than childish arguments!

Hopefully Monte can win him over one day, because that would mean the Kings are truly kicking butt with how high his standards are*!

*and there's nothing wrong with having high standards either, although I'll be the first to admit mine have dropped precipitously after the abomination of the Pete to Vlade era.

Amen to that, especially if you show promise and have essentially gone "all in", or are at least heading that way, to win. If so, that means rings, not first round exits. The truth is Monte hasn't been perfect and he'd probably be the first to admit it. Now the real test begins. This next step is the hardest but Monte so far has proven to be up to the challenge.

 

[SacTownKid]

I feel like I'm holding Monte above the standard Geoff Petrie set. Geoff was hired in 1994 and it took until 99 (ok let's call it 98 though games weren't played in fall of 98 - but 5 NBA seasons) for the Kings to become a perennial playoff team.

Monte is only in his 4th year and it feels like we are in year 2 of being a team built for long term success. Some people expect us to be at the 2002 level Kings already. It took 4 seasons with Vlade/Webber/Peja and Coach Adelman to get to that magical 01-02 season.

Yeah, it's also kind of strange how the timelines are working out. The thing is though, this team is actually farther along in terms of build than that team in reality. Petrie had an older star in the early years and had to trade to get a younger one. Monte already had Fox. Also it was the next few moves that put Petrie's team over the top. Petrie didn't stop and say, nope, we're set. Big Nasty is worth too much to move. Can't touch J-Will, we'll just get better internally. Of course, they did have a few years of intel before hand. The Kings weren't built for playoff ball at that point. Petrie made those decisions to push the team forward. That's kind of where Monte is now.

I brought this up in the summer I think, that team that made the Western conference finals? Peja, Hedo, and Bibby were all around Keegans age. Domas is right around the same age as Webber was the year the Kings nearly won it all. Put that into perspective and Monte needs to know his timeline. This team is ready to start winning for real right now. And that's why I think he's being so aggressive in trying to finish this off.