Blow It Up
- Thread starter SLAB
- Start date
man, I bought into the defense hype early but my expectations are crashing down hard. He’ll be a useful player throughout his career. But with his age and where he is as a rookie … the upside isn’t really there and a team like the Kings need that.
That’s why the Warriors should have taken the win-now defensive but lower upside culture guy and let us have Kuminga.
That’s why the Warriors should have taken the win-now defensive but lower upside culture guy and let us have Kuminga.
Mitchell’s shooting isn’t all that bad for the first 30 games of a rookie season. It’s not good. But for someone figuring out the NBA, playing in a crap offense, and expending maximum effort on D - not terrible.
His age does limit his upside and he is not the physical beast that MS is - but with his work ethic I could see him becoming a solid 3 point shooter, that can run an offense and help lock down the perimeter.
His age does limit his upside and he is not the physical beast that MS is - but with his work ethic I could see him becoming a solid 3 point shooter, that can run an offense and help lock down the perimeter.
Picks Sent:
Sacramento Sends: 2023 1st Round Pick to OKC
2022 2nd Round Pick to 76ers
OKC Sends: 2022 1st Round Pick (Toronto) to Indiana
Why?
Sacramento Kings: Infuses team with defensive minded players, without trading our best players (Fox, Haliburton, Holmes, Davion).
Indiana Pacers: They take a flyer on Ben Simmons, improve their 3pt shooting (Rank 27th in league) with Buddy and secure 2nd 1st round pick to help facilitate their mini-rebuild.
Philadelphia 76ers: They recieve a Top 25 player in Sabonis, a proven scorer in Lavert and an additional 2nd round pick.
OKC: They recieve Harrison Barnes for his vetran leadership (potiental trade chip-expiring contract next year), a flyer on Bagley and Metu, plus the Kings pick in 2023.
It's still early on and sample size can be argued. No doubt. But he's not really hitting anything particularly well:
Where Was It Shot From?
10ft-16ft FG% = .323
15ft-3PT FG%= .306
3PT% = .309
Corner 3PT% = .222
Above the Arc 3PT% = .317
FT% = .667
What Type of Shot?
Pull-Up 3PT% = .294
Catch & Shoot 3PT% = .278
How Contested Was the Shot?
Closest Defender 0ft-2ft 3PT% = N/A (hasn't taken any yet)
Closest Defender 2ft-4ft 3PT% = .000
Closest Defender 4ft-6ft 3PT% = .294
Closest Defender 6ft+ 3PT% = .308
Where Was It Shot From?
10ft-16ft FG% = .323
15ft-3PT FG%= .306
3PT% = .309
Corner 3PT% = .222
Above the Arc 3PT% = .317
FT% = .667
What Type of Shot?
Pull-Up 3PT% = .294
Catch & Shoot 3PT% = .278
How Contested Was the Shot?
Closest Defender 0ft-2ft 3PT% = N/A (hasn't taken any yet)
Closest Defender 2ft-4ft 3PT% = .000
Closest Defender 4ft-6ft 3PT% = .294
Closest Defender 6ft+ 3PT% = .308
Last edited:
There should be if there were any reason in the room where decisions happened. One can do some mental gymnastics where you can fool yourself into thinking that chasing the 8-10th seed is the way to go again. Thats fools gold. Only way this franchise becomes good is getting 1-2 top 3 picks that are actually franchise changing talents and during that you could easily get some additional draft assets. I'd rather have 5 cookies tommorrow rather than licking the bowl today.
All the statistics and data point out that we should tank for a couple of years. Personally I would hate going against statistics. This chase the first round exit strategy has failed us (non suprisingly). Why on earth we wouldnt try something else: actually getting those top level talents in the draft. See where that gets you. Can't be any worse than putting all your assets by cap space to desperately chasing the playoffs without an actuall plan to become a real contender.
All the statistics and data point out that we should tank for a couple of years. Personally I would hate going against statistics. This chase the first round exit strategy has failed us (non suprisingly). Why on earth we wouldnt try something else: actually getting those top level talents in the draft. See where that gets you. Can't be any worse than putting all your assets by cap space to desperately chasing the playoffs without an actuall plan to become a real contender.
I doubt it. The main problem is that our assets all seem to have very narrow demand. I don't feel like we really have great assets for a full rebuild (i.e. a superstar that will bring in a draft haul) or quality young assets to bring us a superstar difference maker.
Fox - Starting an expensive contract. Hasn't improved this year. Major defensive issues. Has shown that he might not be all that flexible to integrate into different systems. I just don't see him as the type of player that a contender would go for thinking he'll put them over the top. He doesn't have the track record of winning basketball. Would a rebuilding team want him? Probably not as he hasn't shown he's a centerpiece. Not saying a trade can't be swung, but I think our expectations will need to be in check on the type of return he could bring.
Barnes - Probably our most prized asset at the start of the year for a contending team. But his recent injuries and down stretch since he's returned has got to have some teams worried and wanting to take a weight and see. Maybe we get a lottery protected 1st and a decent young player for him, but nothing ground breaking.
Haliburton - Total value around the league, he likely is our biggest asset. He's going to be high with analytics front offices. Could be a trade chip going to a rebuilding team or a contender given his style of play. With that said, he's not getting us a superstar without a heck of a lot of additional draft capital thrown in on our part, and if we are rebuilding why would we move him? Feels like Haliburton is the main asset we should be keeping.
Mitchell - I'm sure a lot of contending teams would like to have him off their bench given his defense. Would be attractive to rebuilding teams, although he's an older rookie so that might be one minor strike. With that said, I think his value around the league is probably about where he was drafted. A step below Haliburton as far as his value around the league.
Holmes - Probably would have similar value around the league as Barnes, but my understanding is that he can't be traded for a while due to his new deal (I don't understand the specifics).
Other stuff - throw in type junk
Fox - Starting an expensive contract. Hasn't improved this year. Major defensive issues. Has shown that he might not be all that flexible to integrate into different systems. I just don't see him as the type of player that a contender would go for thinking he'll put them over the top. He doesn't have the track record of winning basketball. Would a rebuilding team want him? Probably not as he hasn't shown he's a centerpiece. Not saying a trade can't be swung, but I think our expectations will need to be in check on the type of return he could bring.
Barnes - Probably our most prized asset at the start of the year for a contending team. But his recent injuries and down stretch since he's returned has got to have some teams worried and wanting to take a weight and see. Maybe we get a lottery protected 1st and a decent young player for him, but nothing ground breaking.
Haliburton - Total value around the league, he likely is our biggest asset. He's going to be high with analytics front offices. Could be a trade chip going to a rebuilding team or a contender given his style of play. With that said, he's not getting us a superstar without a heck of a lot of additional draft capital thrown in on our part, and if we are rebuilding why would we move him? Feels like Haliburton is the main asset we should be keeping.
Mitchell - I'm sure a lot of contending teams would like to have him off their bench given his defense. Would be attractive to rebuilding teams, although he's an older rookie so that might be one minor strike. With that said, I think his value around the league is probably about where he was drafted. A step below Haliburton as far as his value around the league.
Holmes - Probably would have similar value around the league as Barnes, but my understanding is that he can't be traded for a while due to his new deal (I don't understand the specifics).
Other stuff - throw in type junk
Kings twitter is hilarious with their everybody sucks blow it up and then getting mad at the team for showcasing trade bait vs. trying to win.
If I had to guess twitter is more in line with what the casual fan is thinking so I just hope we hurry on with getting Buddy and whoever else out the door. And if it's Marv with his current run of form consider me extremely nervous if we aren't getting like for like in a deal for him.
If I had to guess twitter is more in line with what the casual fan is thinking so I just hope we hurry on with getting Buddy and whoever else out the door. And if it's Marv with his current run of form consider me extremely nervous if we aren't getting like for like in a deal for him.
The only news i’m reading is Kings hoping to package Buddy and Bagley and that Buddy is on the block. Pretty uneventful.
Im definitely curious what sort of market is out there for both, MB has likely increased his value as of late but not sure if Buddy’s one elite skill looks that appealing right now.
Im definitely curious what sort of market is out there for both, MB has likely increased his value as of late but not sure if Buddy’s one elite skill looks that appealing right now.
Last edited:
"Fit" is not the only factor when accepting a trade. Teams who have used this model for decision-making often find themselves on the wrong side of draft picks and trades (Luka). Domantas Sabonis and Caris Levert plus draft compensation is a great haul for a distressed asset in Simmons and a defensive role player in Thybulle.
Fit is an important factor when you're a contender trying to win the ship this year though.
If this were the Kings trying to add talent at all cost, sure but the Sixers need pieces that fit next to their superstar big man in the immediate future not a grab bag of assets they can sort through down the line. If anything the Pacers would be better served getting Buddy, Barnes and Levert from this mega deal than Sabonis.
If this were the Kings trying to add talent at all cost, sure but the Sixers need pieces that fit next to their superstar big man in the immediate future not a grab bag of assets they can sort through down the line. If anything the Pacers would be better served getting Buddy, Barnes and Levert from this mega deal than Sabonis.
Unfortunately, he still has a long ways to go on defense. He looks to me now like what I envisioned from him mid way in his rookie year. At this point in time, he doesn't seem strong enough to guard centers or strong power forwards, whereas his lateral quickness isn't sufficient enough to guard the 3s.
My question with Bagley is were years 2-3 freak injuries or is he permanently glass? If we had a crystal ball and knew nothing statistically about him but that he had >72 games per year in him over the next 4-5 seasons I'd re-sign him without thinking. Unfortunately I think Bagley's next 2-3 seasons are going to turn out more LOLKANGZ than his second and third year did.
There's 4 outcomes with we keep him and he sucks or we trade him and he blows up being the two I see most likely.
There's 4 outcomes with we keep him and he sucks or we trade him and he blows up being the two I see most likely.
Showcasing them is dumb IMO. Whatever trade market there was ain't changing based on 10 games of playing again. Whatever trade market for Buddy was crashed when they sat on him after not trading him and it now not working out in W/L's. Buddy is way more valuable than the package Monte would have gotten in the summer when you consider league trend, but if Monte is looking to move either and a broom and some space is what he gets, well, he did it to himself by waiting. Just get it over with already. If Buddy explodes elsewhere than at least 3rd times a charm and maybe Monte gets the boot so this can start fresh.
I think talent-wise, as I mentioned a few posts ago, we are a couple of correct assets away from being really competitive. But the issue currently seems to be of a different nature. Everyone who had a mic shoved to their faces, coaches (Luke and Gentry), players, everyone had said almost uniformly that "It's on the players". Give them the benefit of a doubt to not actually say what they meant, some of our players are either "not sharp", which can be deciphered as "not working hard enough in making the extra steps" or "not sharp in the understanding of the scheme".
Then Fox dropped that nugget last night about the sharpness of the team, and I think it is clear that he is pointing fingers (at himself too) that collectively, they don't have a good understanding to execute the plans that, according to Fox himself, "everyone runs the same sh*t".
If you ask me, I think Luke came in with the same game plan as GSW, relying heavily on switching rotations on D and movement + intelligent decision-making on offense, which if I was right on my assumption, is the core of our woe. From all the analysis videos I've watched, the GSW team not only relies on their quick, smart decision and sharp (ha!) movement but at this point, Draymond can almost communicate with Steph telepathically. I think what we need is a new game plan from a new coach, who'd implement set plays to ease up the work on the brain having to read systems and react accordingly. (Looking square at Buddy here)
Obviously it's nice to have 10-15 very smart players, but you really only need 1-3 brains on the court who can then set the team up on a second-to-second basis on the court so the rest of the not-so-strategic-minded can fall in line. You don't need everyone on court to immediately see a coverage and knows what to do.
Then Fox dropped that nugget last night about the sharpness of the team, and I think it is clear that he is pointing fingers (at himself too) that collectively, they don't have a good understanding to execute the plans that, according to Fox himself, "everyone runs the same sh*t".
If you ask me, I think Luke came in with the same game plan as GSW, relying heavily on switching rotations on D and movement + intelligent decision-making on offense, which if I was right on my assumption, is the core of our woe. From all the analysis videos I've watched, the GSW team not only relies on their quick, smart decision and sharp (ha!) movement but at this point, Draymond can almost communicate with Steph telepathically. I think what we need is a new game plan from a new coach, who'd implement set plays to ease up the work on the brain having to read systems and react accordingly. (Looking square at Buddy here)
Obviously it's nice to have 10-15 very smart players, but you really only need 1-3 brains on the court who can then set the team up on a second-to-second basis on the court so the rest of the not-so-strategic-minded can fall in line. You don't need everyone on court to immediately see a coverage and knows what to do.