Blow It Up

[Tetsujin]

You spend months hating on the Fox for Simmons proposal. Depending on your perspective, the trade would send an above average to potentially elite talent for an elite talent, who has some flaws.

Your proposal would trade above average to potentially elite talent for good to potentially above average talent. And two firsts that are going to be in the late teens to 20s.

Kings need a talent upgrade. Not more solid players and meh draft picks. Kings punt Fox only if it is a for sure talent upgrade...like Simmons or Sabonis.

Jesus f Christ dude. This is the blow it up thread.
I’m not even pro- or anti- trading Fox. Just throwing up parameters for a potential blow it up trade.

 

[The_Jamal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1467891744348028930

In terms of blow 'er up deals, this isn't too bad. Deni's a good young wing who isn't a total sieve on defense. We need another big like I need another hole in my head but Thomas Bryant looked very good before blowing out his knee at 23 years old last season and is an expiring deal. Sure, I'd prefer Rui or someone coming back in place of Bryant but two good young wing-forwards in one deal is probably too much to ask for (Rui's also currently dealing with mental issues). Wouldn't be thrilled about having to take Dinwiddie back (He's good but also doesn't fit the timeline of a rebuild at all since he's the same age as Richaun and coming off of lower leg surgery.) but he's pretty much the only piece that could make a tree like this work financially and is also very tradable himself as a piece going to a third team. Those 2022 and 2025 first round picks better be unprotected or at least only lightly protected and I'd say that there'd need to be a potential pick swap in between those somewhere as well but as the framework of a build-for-the-future trade, it's solid.

(Ironically, adding a solid wing like Deni and a solid scoring guard like Spencer might actually balance this roster better to the point that we'd probably still be in sight of a playoff/play-in spot)

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

 

[Tetsujin]

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.

 

[hrdboild]

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.

 

[Tetsujin]

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.

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.

 

[The_Jamal]

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.

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.

 

[EIM86]

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

 

[Tetsujin]

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

Or we could trade our solidly good player and replace him with with another solidly good player who hasn't played this entire season and expect things to magically get better somehow!

 

[EIM86]

Or we could trade our solidly good player and replace him with with another solidly good player who hasn't played this entire season and expect things to magically get better somehow!

SOMEBODY CALL VIVEK RIGHT NOW

 

[kb02]

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.

Simmons = Philly drama.
Sabonis = Turner or Sabonis needs to go for either to truly thrive.

 

[kb02]

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.

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.

 

[Gguod]

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.

 

[gunks]

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...

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.

 

[notoriousBEN3]

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?

 

[captain bill]

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.

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.

 

[iowamcnabb]

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.

I’ve been open to tanking (last year for example) but it’s worth noting none of the 16 teams currently “in” the playoffs tanked to get there. They traded, signed or got “lucky” drafting the best players further down the draft.

 

[Tetsujin]

I’ve been open to tanking (last year for example) but it’s worth noting none of the 16 teams currently “in” the playoffs tanked to get there. They traded, signed or got “lucky” drafting the best players further down the draft.

The Warriors tanked two years ago. Of course, the dude they drafted with the second overall pick isn’t even in their rotation and keeps getting yelled at by their team captain but technically they did tank in the recent past.

 

[iowamcnabb]

The Warriors tanked two years ago. Of course, the dude they drafted with the second overall pick isn’t even in their rotation and keeps getting yelled at by their team captain but technically they did tank in the recent past.

I suppose, but I’d call that questionable. They traded their 3rd/4th best player that wasn’t a good fit next to Steph and all brought on by injury.

 

[captain bill]

I’ve been open to tanking (last year for example) but it’s worth noting none of the 16 teams currently “in” the playoffs tanked to get there. They traded, signed or got “lucky” drafting the best players further down the draft.

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

 

[sactowndog]

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

De Andre Hunter was a 4th pick in the 2019 draft that Hawks obtained. He is a key piece for Atlanta.

Don’t leave out Cleveland sitting at 7 with Mobley and Charlotte at 6 with Ball.

 

[iowamcnabb]

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

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.

 

[mac]

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

Could you explain to me what building around Fox would look like, and how we have not done that to this point?

 

[EIM86]

Could you explain to me what building around Fox would look like, and how we have not done that to this point?

do I look like I work in the front office? lol it’s like you forget we are a poverty franchise. Look at the Jazz. You can swap Fox for Mitchell and they’d win games. Instead we got a team that doesn’t shoot well.

 

[mac]

do I look like I work in the front office? lol it’s like you forget we are a poverty franchise. Look at the Jazz. You can swap Fox for Mitchell and they’d win games. Instead we got a team that doesn’t shoot well.

Ah. The circular argument again.

 

[EIM86]

Ah. The circular argument again.

Never read any of your TLDR responses from before cause i didn’t care lol. You build around Fox like the Jazz and They’ll win games. Did it with George Hill who Fox is way better then.

 

[Groovygreg]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1467891744348028930

In terms of blow 'er up deals, this isn't too bad. Deni's a good young wing who isn't a total sieve on defense. We need another big like I need another hole in my head but Thomas Bryant looked very good before blowing out his knee at 23 years old last season and is an expiring deal. Sure, I'd prefer Rui or someone coming back in place of Bryant but two good young wing-forwards in one deal is probably too much to ask for (Rui's also currently dealing with mental issues). Wouldn't be thrilled about having to take Dinwiddie back (He's good but also doesn't fit the timeline of a rebuild at all since he's the same age as Richaun and coming off of lower leg surgery.) but he's pretty much the only piece that could make a tree like this work financially and is also very tradable himself as a piece going to a third team. Those 2022 and 2025 first round picks better be unprotected or at least only lightly protected and I'd say that there'd need to be a potential pick swap in between those somewhere as well but as the framework of a build-for-the-future trade, it's solid.

(Ironically, adding a solid wing like Deni and a solid scoring guard like Spencer might actually balance this roster better to the point that we'd probably still be in sight of a playoff/play-in spot)

The Wizards are tied for the 4th-best record in the Eastern Conference and just 3 games out of 1st place. What exactly would Washington’s incentive be to make this deal?

I like it for the Kings though!

 

[mac]

Never read any of your TLDR responses from before cause i didn’t care lol. You build around Fox like the Jazz and They’ll win games. Did it with George Hill who Fox is way better then.

Ok sure. Quality thought. Might want to let Monte know your secret formula to building a wining team by building a winning team.

 

[NewArena]

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.

It's clearly not. The Thunder are pathetic

 

[NewArena]

I suppose, but I’d call that questionable. They traded their 3rd/4th best player that wasn’t a good fit next to Steph and all brought on by injury.

They definitely sat Curry out for most of the season when he was perfectly fine lol they tanked hard IMO

 

[ESP47]

Tanking netting us Fox and would have gotten us Doncic if any other GM was at the helm.

Not tanking has gotten us Haliburton and Mitchell. Both were widely considered the BPA in their draft slots.

There's clearly two different tiers there.