Balancing the First and Second Units

Warhawk · Saturday at 1:29 PM

What is this obsession with giving away the farm for players who can't play?

You say it wouldn't take much in the way of assets yet we are trading away two all-stars and a boatload of picks. The picks in particular, for all intents and purposes, would be all of our future. For what, 18 games this season? Doug has won almost that many games as interim head coach of the Kings.

No way do you touch Zion until you know he's actually available to play at least 85% of the games every year unless your intent is to be in contention for a good lottery pick. You give up WAY too much to get him to sit on a bench. It's just not worth it.

I swear, a lot of you would trade a new Corvette for a broken down Ferarri (and no mechanic that could work on it) just because, at one time, it was a faster car. I don't get it.

sactowndog · Saturday at 1:29 PM

reptilexcq2 said:

whom are you trading? The only player on the Kings worth a starting power forward was Fox.

no one is trading Lavine or DeRozen for a starting power forward without adding significant draft capital.

twslam07 · Saturday at 1:31 PM

Joshyjosh31 said:

Very much disagree.

I could definitely see them moving Herb and Alvarado. Both will be 27 at the start of next season. Does a team entering a rebuild want to hold onto a 27 year old 3&D forward and a 27 year old backup PG when they can get 1sts back for them? That would be criminal.

I can see them maybe preferring to keep Murphy since he’s a bit younger but he’s also going to 25 at the start of next season. I’d argue he may no longer be on their timeline considering their goal will be to try and find their next #1 guy in the upcoming drafts.

But if they do want to keep Murphy, we can explore adding CHI to the deal and bring back Patrick Williams to fill that role.

twslam07 · Saturday at 1:39 PM

Warhawk said:

Can you define “the farm”?

Wait…we’re trading 2 all stars? Neither of them were on the all star team this year. That feels like a lazy way of trying to increase the value of the two players we’re sending out (LaVine and DeRozan). I think we can be a bit more sophisticated in our assessment of these players (especially on this forum). Don’t you?

If you’re trying to trade for a Zion who has proven he can play 85% of his games every year…well…then you’re not even going to have the opportunity to trade for him…even if you do attempt to give up “the farm.”

You also need to keep in mind that this package is not just for Zion. Herb Jones, Trey Murphy, and Jose Alvarado hold a considerable amount of value on their own.

Joshyjosh31 · Saturday at 2:10 PM

twslam07 said:

25 is extremely young and 27 is old for a rebuild either Herb will go for a lot of he’s traded he’s not gonna be included in a package with Zion unless it’s to OKC

Warhawk · Saturday at 2:15 PM

twslam07 said:

To me, trading two of the top players on the team and a boatload of picks, including 6 (six!!!) unprotected first rounders plus pick swaps certainly qualifies.

Zion also wasn't an all-star the last two years. He must not be very good then, either, right? He only played 18 games this year. To quote you: "I think we can be a bit more sophisticated in our assessment of these players (especially on this forum). Don’t you?" At least our players are suiting up and playing every game.

If Zion was capable of playing they wouldn't trade him to begin with, would they? Who's playing a sucker's bet by going after him in this scenario?

If you want Zion, focus on Zion. I wouldn't trade all those picks and swaps for all those players, much less just Zion.

twslam07 · Saturday at 2:17 PM

Joshyjosh31 said:

25 is “extremely” young? No it’s not. For a team that is going to be searching for their new 18/19 year old star over the next few drafts, your 25 year old role playing forward is now all of a sudden 6-10 years older than your new face of the franchise (depending on how long it takes NOP to find that player). That’s something to be considered and why it wouldn’t be at all shocking if they moved him as well.

Joshyjosh31 · Saturday at 2:22 PM

twslam07 said:

25 isn’t even his prime yet nobody trades a player that young to rebuild when he could be part of a rebuilt. You don’t build with a roster of 20 years olds Cam Johnson is 28 and didn’t get traded 25 is young

and there getting a top 5 pick this year possibly there not blowing it up when you already have multiple hood players in there mid twenties makes no sense

iowamcnabb · Saturday at 2:44 PM

I don’t see New Orleans rebuilding. They are essentially in the same situation Memphis was in last year. Ravaged by injuries and then a bounce back year. I could see them moving Zion but to me there is no way they sell on the other young guys.

twslam07 · Saturday at 3:07 PM

Warhawk said:

I see the confusion. You think because I listed every single one of our draft assets in my post that I was proposing to include all of those picks. That’s not what I said.

Warhawk said:

Claiming someone was an all star as an attempt to assign value to a player was your tactic. It doesn’t really work when you try to pull me into your approach when I initially disagree with the premise.

Zion is a much more impactful player than both of those players at the end of the day so yeah I would prefer to roll with the guy who can at least fill that #1 guy role (when healthy) vs. guys I know can’t.

Warhawk said:

You’re assuming NOP knows he isn’t capable of playing that much. It comes down to what each team thinks, their current situation, and how much risk they are willing to take.

We can even look at DAL who basically said we don’t think Luka has the right mindset and work ethic to be “the” guy. Should we all just accept DAL’s position on Luka or should we come to our own conclusions?

Warhawk said:

Respectfully…no.

If I’m going to focus on a trade for Zion then you better believe I’m going to focus on a trade that builds a complementary roster around him.

Our team really has two major issues…

We don’t have a player who can be a #1 option on a top shelf team (or at least has the potential to be that player)
Our roster does not fit well together and is not complementary

A lot of our conversation has been around #1 and Zion but if we simply trot Zion out there with Monk, DeRozan/LaVine, Murray, and Sabonis, we’re going to face a lot of the same challenges we face now.

The trade framework I proposed addresses both of those major flaws (we add a #1 option and reshape the roster to be much more complementary to our stars).

twslam07 · Saturday at 3:10 PM

Joshyjosh31 said:

Again, 25 is not “extremely” young. By the time their next star hits his prime, Murphy will be 32-36 years old.

Murphy is young but for a team that should do a complete reset, I don’t think the timelines make much sense especially if the assets you can get back for said player can be used to help you find that next franchise player.

twslam07 · Saturday at 3:23 PM

iowamcnabb said:

And that certainly could be the direction they ultimately take.

However, they did just move Ingram for a pick and filler, and to me, it has felt like there is some friction between Zion and the organization. If they do trade Zion, I feel like the natural next step is to rebuild. And if they are rebuilding, I don’t think it makes a ton of sense to hold onto some of these other vets they have.

SacTownKid · Saturday at 4:23 PM

Joshyjosh31 said:

Yeah, kind of beyond cherry picked. Monk and Keon? 118 defensive net rating and +4 in total. HORRIBLE defensively.

LaVine and Keon? 107 defensive net rating and +9 net rating. Not too bad defensively. Passes the eye test.

Joshyjosh31 · Saturday at 5:10 PM

twslam07 said:

Ingram was traded because rightfully so they didn’t want to pay him

I hope we can grab Zion even if he’s not the defender we need he’s the number option that we need and puts Keegan back at SF

Demar, Carter, and two or three first should be a competitive offer

Spike · Saturday at 6:41 PM

I don't get the love for Zion. He's great when healthy, but giving up the farm for someone who inconsistently shows up is a huge red flag, especially given that it's a foot injury. A big dude with a bad foot has a history of not working out.

The greatest ability is availability.

upinsmoke · Saturday at 6:53 PM

Sending Both Demar and Lavine to the bench would be awesome.

iowamcnabb · Saturday at 7:04 PM

Spike said:

I don't get the love for Zion. He's great when healthy, but giving up the farm for someone who inconsistently shows up is a huge red flag, especially given that it's a foot injury. A big dude with a bad foot has a history of not working out.

The greatest ability is availability.

Sincerely, Harrison Barnes.

iowamcnabb · Saturday at 7:10 PM

twslam07 said:

i think if I was them I’d run it back at least for one more year. If they get Dylan Harper or Flagg they could be tough.

imo our best course of action is to trade Deebo for a useful piece and see what the rest of the group can do leading up to the deadline next season. At that point if things are stuck in neutral or worse you have a much more tradable Lavine contract ( if he repeats this year) and a bunch of picks to make a splashy move. I’m also incredibly high on Carter and want to see what he has next season.

sactowndog · Saturday at 7:11 PM

iowamcnabb said:

i think if I was them I’d run it back at least for one more year. If they get Dylan Harper or Flagg they could be tough.

imo our best course of action is to trade Deebo for a useful piece and see what the rest of the group can do leading up to the deadline next season. At that point if things are stuck in neutral or worse you have a much more tradable Lavine contract ( if he repeats this year) and a bunch of picks to make a splashy move. I’m also incredibly high on Carter and want to see what he has next season.

Seriously what do you think we are getting for a 35 year old Deebo?

Spike · Saturday at 7:33 PM

Depends on who wants him. I get that he's 35, but he's still playing great basketball. If we're rebuilding and a team needs him to get over the hump, they'll find a way to make an attractive offer.

Joshyjosh31 · Saturday at 10:42 PM

Spike said:

He’s a top 10 player when healthy why not take the risk. What’s the other choice besides being a 8-12 seed team for the foreseeable future we don’t have assets to compete for other stars who come with no risk. Our core will never be good enough to be top 6 or bad enough to get a top 8 pick we’re in no man’s land. With Zion we could actually make a deep playoff run. I would give up Carter and three firsts for 2-4 playoff runs with Zion

Joshyjosh31 · Saturday at 10:52 PM

sactowndog said:

Deebo
Carter
2027 Sac first
2027 Spurs first
2031 Wolves first

for

Markennen

Monk/
Lavine/Ellis
Keegan/Jake
Lauri/Lyles
Sabonis/Jonas

Warhawk · Sunday at 6:32 AM

twslam07 said:

You literally said the following, which sounds like sending them all to me:

I'll fix your quote for you:

"Claiming someone was an all star is a great player if they are healthy (but they never are) as an attempt to assign value to a player was your tactic. It doesn’t really work when you try to pull me into your approach when I initially disagree with the premise."

There is a big difference between assessing a player's potential impact on a team (if they are playing) and assessing a health history of a player. You can look at someone like Zion independent of health history and say "how could we build a team around him" as a hypothetical. What you can't do is look at his health history and create your own narrative that it isn't the reddest of red flags slapping you in the face as it flaps in the hurricane force winds. You know the old saying: "Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which fills up faster." That's what this is. A bunch of **** dressed up in the form of a wish that an injured player magically won't be. It's like the Kings trading for Ralph Sampson. You cannot trade a boatload of players and picks for a player who can't stay on the floor due to chronic injury issues. You just can't. It's not a "gamble" - it's throwing your $$$ in a garbage can and lighting it on fire.

And in the end, you are trading all our draft capital available to send out for someone with superstar talent who can't play and some role players, who, without the superstar, likely don't improve the team.

Yeah, OK, let's do that and hamstring ourselves for the next 5-10 years....

I'll pass.

Warhawk · Sunday at 6:41 AM

Joshyjosh31 said:

Because, depending on which trade proposal you are looking at, the "risk" is giving away all of our best and unprotected draft capital for a player that can't play a significant number of games each year and has a horrible contract given his production and the team's record. This isn't NBA 2k or something - intentionally trading for a player who literally can't get off the bench for much of the season is insanity.

Now, your proposal of Carter and 3 firsts is a much more reasonable approach than two of our best players, 6 unprotected first rounders, and a bunch of pick swaps. We would have to have draft protection on those picks, though.

Even with Zion and those players that twslam07 wants to trade for, NO is currently one of the worst teams in the league. If we end up the same after the trade, that means those picks could be #1 picks that we are giving away without protections. Insanity.

twslam07 · Sunday at 8:32 AM

Warhawk said:

I’m aware of what I wrote, and as I mentioned, I listed all of the trade assets we have at our fingertips. That’s hardly a confirmation of agreeing to send all of them out in the trade framework I proposed. If I was recommending to send them all out, wouldn’t I have just listed them to begin with in the trade proposal rather than putting a placeholder of “picks?”

You overreacted to a position that wasn’t taken. That’s really what this comes down to.

Warhawk said:

I think you’re confused. You responded saying Zion wasn’t an all star either as a “got ya” to me when I never took the position that I equate a certain amount of value with a player just because they were named to an all star team a few seasons ago. It was a lazy take on your side hence why I called it out. And I think here at KingsFans we can have deeper conversations about the value a player holds vs just saying “you’re trading 2 all star away.”

Warhawk said:

When did I say Zion’s injury history is not a concern? It most definitely is a concern and a gamble. You seem to think it’s actually not a gamble and that it’s a sure fire way to blow assets. You’re entitled to your opinion but to act like it’s a forgone conclusion is another thing.

I think one clear distinction here is that you think I proposed a trade that sends out all of our draft assets for only Zion. That’s not the case.

Warhawk said:

You can keep repeating it but it doesn’t make it true. Me listing all of our draft assets available to us to trade is not the same as proposing all of them.

I also find it funny how guys like Herb Jones and Murphy are just casually thrown in under the “role players” term. Do you not think these two guys would return multiple 1sts by themselves? Big, long, athletic 3&D wings who are just about to enter their prime are coveted in this league. Both of these guys probably have similar trade value to Keegan Murray. What would you be willing to accept in a trade for Keegan Murray?

Let’s at least avoid being disingenuous and acknowledge their talent & impact compared to other guys like a Trey Lyles (for example) who would also be described as a “role player.”

twslam07 · Sunday at 10:34 AM

Warhawk said:

First off, Zion’s contract is not as horrible as you might think (if I’m interpreting it correctly. Maybe Capt can fact check me).

He has 3.5 more years left on his deal without a player option. However, each year is unguaranteed and tied to many different factors…

20% is tied to him passing 6 weigh in checkpoints throughout the prior season (needs to be under 295 lbs)
40% is tied to him playing at least 41 games the prior season
20% is tied to him playing at least 51 games the prior season
20% is tied to him playing at least 61 games the prior season

So yes, he has definite injury concerns but his contract is also structured in a way to help mitigate this risk somewhat.

As for this not being NBA2K, you’re right. And we have essentially assembled a NBA2K roster considering we are starting Monk, LaVine, DeRozan, & Sabonis. A bunch of scorers who aren’t good defenders that don’t have a lead PG to run the engine. So not only do we need someone who is good enough to be a #1 option on a top team, but we need to overhaul the roster to make it much more complementary to help hide player’s weaknesses and generate a synergistic effect.

As for @Joshyjosh31’s proposal, that seems too rich for my liking. I’m likely offering one of DeRozan or LaVine and either 3 1sts or 2 1sts and Carter. Now if you’re wanting the picks to be protected top 2 or top 4, then perhaps you will have to expand it to Carter + 3 1sts.

But I find it interesting that you’re admitting here that DeRozan, Carter, and 3 1sts for Zion is reasonable. It makes me wonder how much value you’re assigning to LaVine, Herb, Murphy, & Alvarado.

If we run with your hypothetical trade where we’re trading “the farm” for Zion, Herb, Murphy, and Alvarado and you’ve established that DeRozan, Carter, and 3 1sts for Zion is reasonable, that means your “outrage” is really coming from this part of your hypothetical trade…

Zach LaVine
3 1sts
3 Pick Swaps

for

Trey Murphy
Herb Jones
Jose Alvarado

Considering both Murphy and Herb probably hold similar value to Murray, I would venture to guess you’re actually assigning substantial positive value to LaVine. Is that correct?

Joshyjosh31 · Sunday at 10:38 AM

Warhawk said:

We wouldn’t be the same after the trade Zion is elite even if we hold him out of back to backs and he gives us 50 regular season games we’re a playoff team and a threat in the playoffs.

I just don’t see another way to get a top 10-15 player that you need in the playoffs our assets can’t outbid other players. Rather risk it than sit back and be a play in merchant for five years with no hope. Zion said he could play back to backs maybe a fresh start would help as well

Joshyjosh31 · Sunday at 10:41 AM

twslam07 said:

First off, Zion’s contract is not as horrible as you might think (if I’m interpreting it correctly. Maybe Capt can fact check me).

He has 3.5 more years left on his deal without a player option. However, each year is unguaranteed and tied to many different factors…

20% is tied to him passing 6 weigh in checkpoints throughout the prior season (needs to be under 295 lbs)
40% is tied to him playing at least 41 games the prior season
20% is tied to him playing at least 51 games the prior season
20% is tied to him playing at least 61 games the prior season

So yes, he has definite injury concerns but his contract is also structured in a way to help mitigate this risk somewhat.

As for this not being NBA2K, you’re right. And we have essentially assembled a NBA2K roster considering we are starting Monk, LaVine, DeRozan, & Sabonis. A bunch of scorers who aren’t good defenders that don’t have a lead PG to run the engine. So not only do we need someone who is good enough to be a #1 option on a top team, but we need to overhaul the roster to make it much more complementary to help hide player’s weaknesses and generate a synergistic effect.

As for @Joshyjosh31’s proposal, that seems too rich for my liking. I’m likely offering one of DeRozan or LaVine and either 3 1sts or 2 1sts and Carter. Now if you’re wanting the picks to be protected top 2 or top 4, then perhaps you will have to expand it to Carter + 3 1sts.

But I find it interesting that you’re admitting here that DeRozan, Carter, and 3 1sts for Zion is reasonable. It makes me wonder how much value you’re assigning to LaVine, Herb, Murphy, & Alvarado.

If we run with your hypothetical trade where we’re trading “the farm” for Zion, Herb, Murphy, and Alvarado and you’ve established that DeRozan, Carter, and 3 1sts for Zion is reasonable, that means your “outrage” is really coming from this part of your hypothetical trade…

Zach LaVine
3 1sts
3 Pick Swaps

for

Trey Murphy
Herb Jones
Jose Alvarado

Considering both Murphy and Herb probably hold similar value to Murray, I would venture to guess you’re actually assigning substantial positive value to LaVine. Is that correct?

I don’t see how NO trades Murphy when he’s 25 makes zero sense after he broke out this year. Herb Jones yes but I see no point in going for him over Zion. Like you said we don’t have a number one and getting jokes doesn’t fix that he fixes the defense but we’re still a first round exit at best with him

Warhawk · Sunday at 10:57 AM

twslam07 said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree. When you say "Here's the max package for picks" and then say that you don't know if we would have to send all of them seems to me like you're OK with that, if necessary. You certainly didn't say "I'd send 3 picks and one swap". The implications are clear, at least to me. Obviously, you are considering it and don't dispute the potential max pick package as an option. It is insanity to spend that many assets for a consistently injured player, and the team on which they play is currently dead last in the conference.

We're also sending out two of our best players in return in your scenario. I think you are downplaying that aspect as well.

I've never said he's not a great talent. But when that player can't play consistently, demands a boatload of picks to get, and his team is currently last (when you want to get both that player and what you consider some of the best players around him), what happens when that doesn't work? What happens when we have no picks left and we are then last in the conference because said player is out for the season due to injury or, even worse, maybe a career-ending one? What's your plan then? We have next to picks (especially as compared to now), the picks we traded away are great ones, and we have no plan to move forward?

That's not an educated gamble, that's team suicide. Whatever. I say we don't go after the next Ralph Sampson / Greg Oden / Bill Walton. Obviously you feel otherwise. Good luck with that!

I'm going to drop out of this as my position on acquiring a consistently injured player is clear. Same as all those who wanted to trade Fox for Simmons, or whatever. THAT would have been poor asset management.

twslam07 · Sunday at 10:58 AM

Joshyjosh31 said:

Agree on the #1 option. It caps our ceiling as a team when we don’t have that type of player on the roster.

Ideally, we should be selling off our vets and head back towards a rebuild as we don’t have the cap space to sign that caliber of player (and even if we did, that type of player is not choosing to sign with SAC) and we don’t have a war chest of assets to be competitive when trading for such a player.

However, I don’t see Vivek being okay with us rebuilding so you’re really only left with two options…

Try to become a top team in the west by targeting a flawed #1 in a trade (Zion, Durant, George, etc.) which comes with a considerably risk factor if that star doesn’t work out
Be okay with being mediocre for a few years and your continuous play-in tournament experiences and then blow it and rebuild again

That 2nd option seems lethargic to me and it doesn’t really excite me as a fan.

Balancing the First and Second Units

Give blood and save a life!

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

Starter

Give blood and save a life!

All-Star

Starter

Hall of Famer

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

Hall of Famer

Starter

Subsidiary Intermediary

All-Star

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

All-Star

Subsidiary Intermediary

Starter

Starter

Give blood and save a life!

Give blood and save a life!

All-Star

All-Star

Starter

Starter

Give blood and save a life!

All-Star