Damian Lillard

#61
I would like to be on record saying that I would totally trade Fox for Dame. In a heartbeat. Y'all got a lot of confidence and hope in two guys who've never made an all star or all NBA team and I guess you must be way more patient than I am after missing the playoffs for 16 years. 10 year window? Did I miss the part where we had Fox signed for 10 years, or the part where he's guaranteed to stay because of our winning ways?

Guess I'll just have to live with 10 more years of "Fox would average 50ppg if he got the calls that [insert player name] got", and "Kings would also be in the finals like [insert player name] but aren't cos ESPN and the NBA aren't pushing Fox as next Magic Johnson narrative"

Oo let's not be short sighted. Let's be all about the future and long term winning, like we have the past 16 years counting on draft pick after draft pick and all those mystical top free agents who are gonna sign with the Kings to lead us to the promise land. Hey, as long as they say they wanna be in Sac right?
I go with my gut. I was disappointed when Petrie took fools gold Thomas Robinson over Lillard but that was almost nine years ago. Today I would not move Fox or Haliburton for anyone in the NBA.
 
#62
I go with my gut. I was disappointed when Petrie took fools gold Thomas Robinson over Lillard but that was almost nine years ago. Today I would not move Fox or Haliburton for anyone in the NBA.
Well I appreciate your honesty, but I really don't think that's the way you build winning teams. Fox is pretty good, and Haliburton has shown a lot of promise, but really you wouldn't move either of them for ANYONE in the NBA? I could list 10 guards alone I'd take over them.
 
#63
Well I appreciate your honesty, but I really don't think that's the way you build winning teams. Fox is pretty good, and Haliburton has shown a lot of promise, but really you wouldn't move either of them for ANYONE in the NBA? I could list 10 guards alone I'd take over them.
Well I appreciate your honesty, but I really don't think that's the way you build winning teams. Fox is pretty good, and Haliburton has shown a lot of promise, but really you wouldn't move either of them for ANYONE in the NBA? I could list 10 guards alone I'd take over them.
I’ve been drinking a few beers with the Mrs. swatting numerous flies while trying to enjoy an outback sunset, but yeah I like Fox and Haliburton’s potential too much to give up on either.
It may take a year or two and a better supporting cast but I feel that and Monte’s common sense is a good enough combo to show some patience.
 
#64
I would like to be on record saying that I would totally trade Fox for Dame. In a heartbeat.
Do you think the trade would be straight up or that we would have to send more pieces, because I would consider it straight up, though I don't think Dame would be happy; with more pieces, we're trading to upgrade our strongest position while weakening some other. Not sure how that helps. We need to shore up our front court more than we need to enhance our guard rotation.

More to the point, if we had to give #9 and our 2023 first or two years of pick swaps, do you think we would even be a playoff team as constructed and swapping Fox for Dame?
 
#65
I would like to be on record saying that I would totally trade Fox for Dame. In a heartbeat. Y'all got a lot of confidence and hope in two guys who've never made an all star or all NBA team and I guess you must be way more patient than I am after missing the playoffs for 16 years. 10 year window? Did I miss the part where we had Fox signed for 10 years, or the part where he's guaranteed to stay because of our winning ways?

Guess I'll just have to live with 10 more years of "Fox would average 50ppg if he got the calls that [insert player name] got", and "Kings would also be in the finals like [insert player name] but aren't cos ESPN and the NBA aren't pushing Fox as next Magic Johnson narrative"

Oo let's not be short sighted. Let's be all about the future and long term winning, like we have the past 16 years counting on draft pick after draft pick and all those mystical mythical top free agents who are gonna sign with the Kings to lead us to the promise land. Hey, as long as they say they wanna be in Sac right?
You're looking at this wrong. In hindsight it's likely the shortcuts that cost this team in the end. Especially Vlade trying to go for the Lavines of the world, striking out and then settling for Dedmon, Cory Joseph, and George Hill types instead. And it was also likely those moves that put the Kings out of the real talent window in draft after draft making those picks less opportunistic. Not to mention getting extremely lucky to move up to number 2 in a really good draft and then not picking Luka aside, pushing the immediate opportunities for that pick away so players like Holmes, Metu, etc. can shine. This is what bad franchises do. Trading a 23 year old star for a 31 year old star that isn't a LeBron level player when you haven't made the playoffs in that many years with no real plan of how to build the team up enough to fit him is what hopeless franchises do.
 
#66
Do you think the trade would be straight up or that we would have to send more pieces, because I would consider it straight up, though I don't think Dame would be happy; with more pieces, we're trading to upgrade our strongest position while weakening some other. Not sure how that helps. We need to shore up our front court more than we need to enhance our guard rotation.

More to the point, if we had to give #9 and our 2023 first or two years of pick swaps, do you think we would even be a playoff team as constructed and swapping Fox for Dame?
First of all, I definitely agree that PG is our strongest position, and once you add in the issue of having to send other players/picks etc then I agree it's not so clear cut that we would be better off. But I'm just talking about the idea of trading Fox or Hali for Dame and how it relates to supposed short-term or long-term success. Why are we so confident that Fox and Hali are going to lead us to deep playoff runs when they frankly haven't proven anything yet? Fact is that Fox and Hali alone aren't going to get it done, and I don't see how keeping the status quo of losing season after losing season is going to make Sacramento a more attractive destination for free agents. Again, Fox has not even made an all-star team, or an all NBA 3rd team in 4 years in the league, has not led us to the playoffs, and is definitely behind some of his contemporaries or juniors in career trajectory - I just don't see how you turn down a superstar NOW for some hope that Fox will become one in the future.

To your question on the actual trade, yes I do think we would be a playoff team. For one, Dame's ability to shoot opens things up so much more for the rest of the team, and converting more free throws nets us a handful of games in itself. Next, Dame actually commands respect and will be the leader of the team, as opposed to Fox who just hasn't shown the ability to really lead/motivate our rosters. All that whining we always do about how we don't get respect, how the media and refs aren't on our side? I'd imagine that improves when we have an established superstar on the team. On the flip side, I don't think the #9 pick is expected to materially improve the team next season, or we wouldn't be shopping it to begin with. So yes, I am pretty confident in saying our playoff odds would be substantially better next season with the trade you suggested. The next angle then is whether Dame can attract some FAs to play come to Sac, to which my thoght is that at the most it can't be any worse than how it would be with Fox. If fans think Fox+Hali will attract key FAs, there's no reason to think Dame+Hali and actually breaking the playoff drought wouldn't do the same. Likewise for the eventual coaching change that will be made.

Of course, the devil is in the details and salaries and whatnot. But purely on the scenario you proposed, I think Dame allows for a lot easier roster construction than Fox does. For example, I'd be a lot more comfortable trading Buddy for Steven Adams if the PG was Dame than I would be with Fox (due to the lesser need for spacing)
 
Last edited:
#67
You're looking at this wrong. In hindsight it's likely the shortcuts that cost this team in the end. Especially Vlade trying to go for the Lavines of the world, striking out and then settling for Dedmon, Cory Joseph, and George Hill types instead. And it was also likely those moves that put the Kings out of the real talent window in draft after draft making those picks less opportunistic. Not to mention getting extremely lucky to move up to number 2 in a really good draft and then not picking Luka aside, pushing the immediate opportunities for that pick away so players like Holmes, Metu, etc. can shine. This is what bad franchises do. Trading a 23 year old star for a 31 year old star that isn't a LeBron level player when you haven't made the playoffs in that many years with no real plan of how to build the team up enough to fit him is what hopeless franchises do.
How bout trading a 23 year old guy who hasn't made the playoffs, all-star team, all-rookie, or all-NBA team for a 31 year old bona fide superstar? You do realise that Fox is an UFA after 5 years right? And you also realise that barring some substantial moves, the likelihood of us making the playoffs/at best second round of the playoffs in the next 2-3 years is pretty slim? We will continue to not attract key FAs, be forced to pay the basketball hell tax while getting the #12-14 pick in every draft while we continue to wait on our young backcourt of the future to actually reach the future. That's not a long term success plan, that's blind optimism.
 
#68
I'm not advocating trading for Lillard but he's basically twice as effective as Fox is.
Twice as effective is major league hyperbole.

Look, Dame — along with Giannis — is 2 of my favorite players in the league. So I have no anti-bias here.

But let’s not pretend Dame has led teams to multiple titles or even a single title. Or even a conference chanpionship.

In his 9 NBA seasons, the Blazers have been 1st round losers 5 times. They’ve only made 1 Conference Finals appearance.

We all know that Dame is super good. But if he were TWICE as effective as Swipa is now — the Blazers would have a ton more to show for it.

Let’s be real. As clutch as Dame can often be, he also is capable of shooting his team out of games. And his defense isn’t anything superior over De’Aaron.

Over a long 72-82 game season, Dame is consistent enough for Portland to win 50+ games and get in the postseason in a league where more teams make the postseason than don’t.

But Portland consistently loses in the 1st or 2nd round because he and McCollum aren’t always consistently as effective in only 4-7 games against defenses more designed to slow them down that also make adjustments game to game.

Dame has also played with LaMarcus Aldridge when LA was still among the top bigs in the league. A benefit De’Aaron has never had. It’s also arguable whether Fox has even played with another player as good as McCollum (perhaps Hali will be one day soon).

Listen, I’m not suggesting De’Aaron is as good as Dame Time. Just that the difference is nowhere near twice as effective. That’s just typical Kingsfan talk where every player not in a KINGS uniform is considered ungodly.

FWIW, Swipa’s 2021 production — his 4th NBA season — was pretty on par and comparable to Dame’s 4th season across the board. De’Aaron had much better overall shooting percentage (nearly 6% better) on very similar FG attempts per game but inferior 3pt shooting percentage (as you’d expect) by 5%. Fox averaged more assists per game and less turnovers.

All that has really evolved in Dame’s game since season 4 is his 3pt percentage has improved and he shoots several more of them per game. Everything else is about the same as it was.

Regardless whether Fox Force 5 will ever see similar improvement, the level he’s been playing at the past 2 seasons and especially in 2021 isn’t just half that of Mr. Lillard. No chance. He’s much closer than that.

It’ll be interesting to see what De’Aaron can do with a better team and better coaching around him as many of these other so called better players have.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#69
Surround Fox with the Portland roster over the last 3 years or so. Do people still think the Kings would be a sub 500 team?

Get the remainder of the Kings roster up to Fox’s level and everyone will be saying Fox is pretty good.

I like Lillard, he’s tremendous. But I’m not trading Fox for him. I have a belief that Monte has us on the right track. I’d rather have the younger stud player.
 
#70
How bout trading a 23 year old guy who hasn't made the playoffs, all-star team, all-rookie, or all-NBA team for a 31 year old bona fide superstar? You do realise that Fox is an UFA after 5 years right? And you also realise that barring some substantial moves, the likelihood of us making the playoffs/at best second round of the playoffs in the next 2-3 years is pretty slim? We will continue to not attract key FAs, be forced to pay the basketball hell tax while getting the #12-14 pick in every draft while we continue to wait on our young backcourt of the future to actually reach the future. That's not a long term success plan, that's blind optimism.
The how about is what has been discussed by others, does it put you in contention immediately? Because that real how about should be the criteria when realistically you have decreased the size of whatever window there is. I'd go back to looking at everything the way it should be, as an asset. If Fox continues to play at the level he is he'll still have trade value in a few years if it doesn't work out. Lillard will be there with likely only a small crack of daylight left in his prime so expecting a similar package in terms of rebuild potential is and should be a concern. One thing Vlade had a knack for was at least minimizing the lack of value with the descending contracts he signed. The Kings have a chance to back track into a semi easy rebuild at this moment should it come to that. That is unless they go gangbusters all in this summer. It could pay off, but if it doesn't you're looking at 2-3 years of TRUE basketball hell. The same hell the Kings have been in a few times during this stretch.
 
#74
The how about is what has been discussed by others, does it put you in contention immediately? Because that real how about should be the criteria when realistically you have decreased the size of whatever window there is. I'd go back to looking at everything the way it should be, as an asset. If Fox continues to play at the level he is he'll still have trade value in a few years if it doesn't work out. Lillard will be there with likely only a small crack of daylight left in his prime so expecting a similar package in terms of rebuild potential is and should be a concern. One thing Vlade had a knack for was at least minimizing the lack of value with the descending contracts he signed. The Kings have a chance to back track into a semi easy rebuild at this moment should it come to that. That is unless they go gangbusters all in this summer. It could pay off, but if it doesn't you're looking at 2-3 years of TRUE basketball hell. The same hell the Kings have been in a few times during this stretch.
You see the whole problem is that you and others keep treating Fox as if he is a surefire superstar. Which is why you think a longer window with Fox is better than a shorter window with Dame. That's the fundamental difference. If Fox isn't a superstar, there is no window, period. All you have is Mike Conley or young Kyle Lowry being your best player for the next 5 years signed to a max deal. Could he be a superstar? Perhaps, but it is far from certain. If Fox were Booker, or Donovan Mitchell, or Trae Young, or Tatum, or even Brandon Ingram I'd agree with you, because those guys have actually proven something.

Since you keep talking about long term success and deep playoff runs, I went back to look at all the teams in the past 20 years that made the CONFERENCE finals (i.e. the pinnacle of Kings success). Here are the interesting facts. Not many of them were led by players who had not made an all-star team or some form of all-NBA team by year 4, and practically none by year 5. The exceptions were: the 03-08 Pistons, the 04 Pacers, 07 Jazz, '16 Raptors, and '17 Celtics.

- 03-08 PIstons: No young allstars, but Prince was all defense from his third season onwards. Rasheed Wallace had made the WCF and allstar team in his 5th year, other guys like Billups, Rip Hamilton were later to the party.
- 04 Pacers: Artest was already all-defense in year 4, and an all-star in year 5 which was when they made the conf finals. Jermaine O'Neal was an all star in y6.
- 07 Jazz: Boozer made the all star team that year, which was year 5 for him. Deron Williams was in his second year and didn't have the achievements at the time, but went on to make all-NBA by year 3. Team also had Kirilenko who was an allstar and all-defensive team in his 3rd year, but I wouldn't say that the Jazz team was led by him.
- 2016 Raptors: DeRozan had made the all star team in year 5. Lowry was late to the party, only having made an all star team in year 9.
- 2017 Celtics: This is the only one that I think counts as a true exception. The team was a bunch of good team, defensive players ... and Isaiah Thomas, who does not fit my criteria. Nonetheless, the team did have Al Horford, who was an allstar and all NBA guy by his fourth year, but it'd be a stretch to say that the team was led by him.

Other teams that you could argue are technically exceptions:
- 06 Suns: Nash only made an all star team in y6, but the team did have Marion who was an allstar in y4 and Stoudemire (but didn't play that season). Marion did lead the team in scoring.
- 2013 Grizzlies: Marc Gasol did make the allstar team in y4 (and was DPOY by y5), but you could argue he wasn't the key leader given that it was one of those "team effort" rosters.
- 2015-2019 Warriors: Ok fine, Steph made the all star team in his fifth year. Klay and Draymond made it by y4 though.
- 2017 Spurs: Kawhi only made the all star team in year 5, but he was finals MVP in year 3 and DPOY in y4
- 2021 Suns: Depending whether you consider the team's leader as Paul (most do) or Booker (who in any case made the all star team in y5)

If you broaden the criteria to account for leading teams to playoff appearances/winning, the list becomes even smaller.

My logical conclusion from this exercise is that if you're not a pretty established star by year 4, chances are you're not becoming a superstar unless your name is Steve Nash. If you take off the purple glasses, the fact is that a reasonably optimistic case is for Fox to be like DeRozan, and I don't think I need to remind everyone of how the Raptors couldn't get over the hump until they got Kawhi. Do you want to wait another 5 years waiting to POSSIBLY make the playoffs, or wait 4 years for a round 1 exit? I'd rather have Dame for this 2-3 year window, actually make the playoffs NOW, change the whole basketball hell narrative, and attract whatever other talent we can in the process.
 
#76
You see the whole problem is that you and others keep treating Fox as if he is a surefire superstar. Which is why you think a longer window with Fox is better than a shorter window with Dame. That's the fundamental difference. If Fox isn't a superstar, there is no window, period. All you have is Mike Conley or young Kyle Lowry being your best player for the next 5 years signed to a max deal. Could he be a superstar? Perhaps, but it is far from certain. If Fox were Booker, or Donovan Mitchell, or Trae Young, or Tatum, or even Brandon Ingram I'd agree with you, because those guys have actually proven something.

Since you keep talking about long term success and deep playoff runs, I went back to look at all the teams in the past 20 years that made the CONFERENCE finals (i.e. the pinnacle of Kings success). Here are the interesting facts. Not many of them were led by players who had not made an all-star team or some form of all-NBA team by year 4, and practically none by year 5. The exceptions were: the 03-08 Pistons, the 04 Pacers, 07 Jazz, '16 Raptors, and '17 Celtics.

- 03-08 PIstons: No young allstars, but Prince was all defense from his third season onwards. Rasheed Wallace had made the WCF and allstar team in his 5th year, other guys like Billups, Rip Hamilton were later to the party.
- 04 Pacers: Artest was already all-defense in year 4, and an all-star in year 5 which was when they made the conf finals. Jermaine O'Neal was an all star in y6.
- 07 Jazz: Boozer made the all star team that year, which was year 5 for him. Deron Williams was in his second year and didn't have the achievements at the time, but went on to make all-NBA by year 3. Team also had Kirilenko who was an allstar and all-defensive team in his 3rd year, but I wouldn't say that the Jazz team was led by him.
- 2016 Raptors: DeRozan had made the all star team in year 5. Lowry was late to the party, only having made an all star team in year 9.
- 2017 Celtics: This is the only one that I think counts as a true exception. The team was a bunch of good team, defensive players ... and Isaiah Thomas, who does not fit my criteria. Nonetheless, the team did have Al Horford, who was an allstar and all NBA guy by his fourth year, but it'd be a stretch to say that the team was led by him.

Other teams that you could argue are technically exceptions:
- 06 Suns: Nash only made an all star team in y6, but the team did have Marion who was an allstar in y4 and Stoudemire (but didn't play that season). Marion did lead the team in scoring.
- 2013 Grizzlies: Marc Gasol did make the allstar team in y4 (and was DPOY by y5), but you could argue he wasn't the key leader given that it was one of those "team effort" rosters.
- 2015-2019 Warriors: Ok fine, Steph made the all star team in his fifth year. Klay and Draymond made it by y4 though.
- 2017 Spurs: Kawhi only made the all star team in year 5, but he was finals MVP in year 3 and DPOY in y4
- 2021 Suns: Depending whether you consider the team's leader as Paul (most do) or Booker (who in any case made the all star team in y5)

If you broaden the criteria to account for leading teams to playoff appearances/winning, the list becomes even smaller.

My logical conclusion from this exercise is that if you're not a pretty established star by year 4, chances are you're not becoming a superstar unless your name is Steve Nash. If you take off the purple glasses, the fact is that a reasonably optimistic case is for Fox to be like DeRozan, and I don't think I need to remind everyone of how the Raptors couldn't get over the hump until they got Kawhi. Do you want to wait another 5 years waiting to POSSIBLY make the playoffs, or wait 4 years for a round 1 exit? I'd rather have Dame for this 2-3 year window, actually make the playoffs NOW, change the whole basketball hell narrative, and attract whatever other talent we can in the process.
Booker and Trae dont belong in that group. Id bet hawks and suns trade those guys for Dame any day of the week and probably pelicans with BI too. You dont think Fox is on their level and that's fine, but they arent on Dame's level either. Dame is the reason the blazers are a playoff team. CP3 is the reason the suns are in the WCF. Trae is playing in the east with a better coach and arguably better support, and the pelicans had the same record as us with BI and Zion. Also getting an allstar nod is a flawed system. First it's a popularity contest, and also some undeserving players get the spot due to their team being top of the conference even though their are other players who are better, or you get in due to injury. Lillard doesnt get hurt last year or AD doesnt get hurt this year, booker is basically de'aaron fox on a team with a better coach and CP3. I understand and agree with your point that Dame is better than fox and getting a superstar now is smarter than hoping your young star becomes that superstar one day. I just dont really agree with the criteria that would exempt the team from becoming a conference finalist. Especially when there wasnt much parity in the league (especiallly the west) and it was dominated by dynasties and there are so many allstar snubs for whatever reason.
 
#79
Also getting an allstar nod is a flawed system. First it's a popularity contest, and also some undeserving players get the spot due to their team being top of the conference even though their are other players who are better, or you get in due to injury. Lillard doesnt get hurt last year or AD doesnt get hurt this year, booker is basically de'aaron fox on a team with a better coach and CP3. I understand and agree with your point that Dame is better than fox and getting a superstar now is smarter than hoping your young star becomes that superstar one day. I just dont really agree with the criteria that would exempt the team from becoming a conference finalist. Especially when there wasnt much parity in the league (especiallly the west) and it was dominated by dynasties and there are so many allstar snubs for whatever reason.
Which is why I was pretty strict in the criteria that they had to be the ones LEADING their teams, and also expanded it to all-NBA honors like all defense or DPOY or some sort of accolade. It's not like I was counting Kyle Korver in there. I mean if a guy makes it because his team is at the top of the conference, and he is the #1 or #2 guy on that team, how can you say he is undeserving? Based on the list I looked at, these are the #1/#2 guys on all those conference finals teams who had major accolades by year 4:
Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Garnett, Webber, Stojakovic, Duncan, Amare, Shawn Marion, Marc Gasol, DRose, Lebron, Kobe, Shaq, DWade, Al Horford, Harden, Kawhi (year 3 finals MVP, year 4 DPOY), Jokic, Dame, Paul George (Indiana), Giannis, Kyrie, Tatum, Trae Young (keep in mind Young is only in his 3rd season), Chris Paul, Durant, Dwight Howard, Dirk, Klay, Draymond, Anthony Davis, Melo, Kirilenko, Iverson, Jason Kidd, Jimmy Butler, Artest (all-defense in year 3, all star year 5)

Came close to meeting: Steph, DeRozan, Carlos Boozer, Deron Williams (would ultimately go on to fulfil the criteria, but made the conf finals in his second year), Booker

Not close to meeting: Kyle Lowry, Steve Nash, Jermaine Oneal, Detroit Pistons, Isaiah Thomas

So which of those players in the first list can you flat out say were undeserving? I'd say at best Trae (who is only in year 3, and has a good chance of being a "deserving" all star next year) and AK47 (who in any case was all defense from year 3), and maybe Stojakovic (in any case, we had Webber who was the true superstar)?

The point is as I said, rarely do you get a case where a guy hasn't established himself as an all-star/some universal consideration as a top player in the league by his fourth year go on to be a superstar capable of leading his team to the conference finals. But so many here are expecting Fox to do so. If Fox doesn't make the all-star team next year, I am almost certainly guaranteeing that we will never see him be the #1 guy on a team that makes the conference finals.

Booker and Trae dont belong in that group. Id bet hawks and suns trade those guys for Dame any day of the week and probably pelicans with BI too. You dont think Fox is on their level and that's fine, but they arent on Dame's level either. Dame is the reason the blazers are a playoff team. CP3 is the reason the suns are in the WCF. Trae is playing in the east with a better coach and arguably better support, and the pelicans had the same record as us with BI and Zion.
Then you're sort of making my point for me aren't you? You're saying that Booker is basically Fox, but you're saying that the Suns would trade Booker for Dame any day of the week. You're saying the Hawks would do it, and by the "time window" argument Atlanta has an even longer window with Trae than we do with Fox. So why wouldn't Kings fans do it (again, just purely from the hypothetical of doing a straight up swap with at most picks thrown in)???? Why are Kings fans so convinced that Fox is better than any of those guys, when he hasn't won anything individually or led us as a team to win anything?

I agree with Ingram, included him to be charitable in terms of understanding the perspective of not trading a young "star".
 
Last edited:
#81
Gary Payton didn't make an all star till his 5th year.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paytoga01.html

Well I literally did the homework of the past twenty years, so thanks for casually giving an example for the early 90s, which isn't even correct because Payton made it in his 4th year (the 1993-1994 season) lol. So did Kemp. Who did the Sonics face in the WCF? Suns, led by Barkley (all star in year 3, all NBA from year 2) and Jazz (Malone all star in year 3, Stockton all-NBA in year 4)
 
Last edited:
#82
Then you're sort of making my point for me aren't you? You're saying that Booker is basically Fox, but you're saying that the Suns would trade Booker for Dame any day of the week. You're saying the Hawks would do it, and by the "time window" argument Atlanta has an even longer window with Trae than we do with Fox. So why wouldn't Kings fans do it (again, just purely from the hypothetical of doing a straight up swap with at most picks thrown in)???? Why are Kings fans so convinced that Fox is better than any of those guys, when he hasn't won anything individually or led us as a team to win anything?

I agree with Ingram, included him to be charitable in terms of understanding the perspective of not trading a young "star".
Why? Some of it is outside factors like fox is doing it despite his team/coach where booker and Trae are doing it after their team has improved. A couple years ago those three were in the same position at the bottom of the league. Add a superstar or multiple good players and good coach and 2 of them automatically are allstar worthy but the other isn’t even tho he is playing statistically better this year? Maybe Kings fan see him as an all star caliber player but being the odd man out in a loaded guard heavy west. Maybe it’s just blind optimism. This is the same fan site that had people who wouldn’t trade dmc for lebron. Dmc was my favorite king and I would have done that any day. Fox is my current fave and if it was Fox for Dame straight up it’s hard to pass that up. The only argument I can see is potential because of age but that also the same reason fans won’t give up a draft pick for a current star. They think the pick can become a better star and ignore the possibility of being a bust or just not as good. It confuses me. I see all these arguments why they wouldn’t, though I don’t agree with most of them, I understand their reasoning.
 
#83
I would like to be on record saying that I would totally trade Fox for Dame. In a heartbeat. Y'all got a lot of confidence and hope in two guys who've never made an all star or all NBA team and I guess you must be way more patient than I am after missing the playoffs for 16 years. 10 year window? Did I miss the part where we had Fox signed for 10 years, or the part where he's guaranteed to stay because of our winning ways?

Guess I'll just have to live with 10 more years of "Fox would average 50ppg if he got the calls that [insert player name] got", and "Kings would also be in the finals like [insert player name] but aren't cos ESPN and the NBA aren't pushing Fox as next Magic Johnson narrative"

Oo let's not be short sighted. Let's be all about the future and long term winning, like we have the past 16 years counting on draft pick after draft pick and all those mystical mythical top free agents who are gonna sign with the Kings to lead us to the promise land. Hey, as long as they say they wanna be in Sac right?
I would be tempted to trade Fox for a Simmons package. Like you said all we do if if this if that for Fox, Ben is a great regular season player we’d be closer to the playoffs with him.
 

gunks

Hall of Famer
#84
I go with my gut. I was disappointed when Petrie took fools gold Thomas Robinson over Lillard but that was almost nine years ago. Today I would not move Fox or Haliburton for anyone in the NBA.
I’m with you man!

Fox’s growth has been amazing. He’s gotten better every year. He’s already all-star level in my opinion, and I think it’s a safe bet that he continues to improve.

Hali just “gets it”. Insane BBIQ, great fit with Fox, I’m not sure what to expect out of him ceiling wise, but I’m sure he’ll surpass a lot of folks expectations. He’s exactly the type of player you need if you want to win. The antithesis of those empty stats guys.

Doesn’t hurt that both players actually want to be here, are likable dudes, and embrace the role of turning this woeful franchise around!

I’d hate to trade that away for any player who’s entering that mercenary “ring chasing” phase of their career, even if said player is better now (Dame is definitely better than Fox - but I anticipate that gap closing in the next few seasons).
 
#85
I’m with you man!

Fox’s growth has been amazing. He’s gotten better every year. He’s already all-star level in my opinion, and I think it’s a safe bet that he continues to improve.

Hali just “gets it”. Insane BBIQ, great fit with Fox, I’m not sure what to expect out of him ceiling wise, but I’m sure he’ll surpass a lot of folks expectations. He’s exactly the type of player you need if you want to win. The antithesis of those empty stats guys.

Doesn’t hurt that both players actually want to be here, are likable dudes, and embrace the role of turning this woeful franchise around!

I’d hate to trade that away for any player who’s entering that mercenary “ring chasing” phase of their career, even if said player is better now (Dame is definitely better than Fox - but I anticipate that gap closing in the next few seasons).
I have seen some Kings trade scenarios on this board that I could get behind , but none include our young backcourt. And yes Giannis, who is also a great character guy as well champion of the small market, would be an exception but that ain’t going to happen.
Of all the trade ideas i’ve seen here that I’d appreciate Monte exploring is working something with Cleveland to potentially land Mobley. Even if we miss the playoffs for another year while they jell, that would be a fine core.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#86
Fox is a dude. Maybe focus on improving other areas/positions on the roster. Or is this going to be like when Boogie was here putting up insane numbers but gets the blame for the crapty roster and coaches.
 
#87
I have seen some Kings trade scenarios on this board that I could get behind , but none include our young backcourt. And yes Giannis, who is also a great character guy as well champion of the small market, would be an exception but that ain’t going to happen.
Of all the trade ideas i’ve seen here that I’d appreciate Monte exploring is working something with Cleveland to potentially land Mobley. Even if we miss the playoffs for another year while they jell, that would be a fine core.
Would you trade Haliburton OR Fox to move up and draft Mobley?
 
#88
Would you trade Haliburton OR Fox to move up and draft Mobley?
No, I would simply roll with the 9th pick which holds good value before doing that. Also, Fox and Haliburton's good word on Walton could have something to do with why he's still got a job, don't think either are going anywhere.
I do give Monte a lot of credit and believe he's going to pull something really amusing around draft day. So I'm not getting too invested in our current draft position.
 
#89
You see the whole problem is that you and others keep treating Fox as if he is a surefire superstar. Which is why you think a longer window with Fox is better than a shorter window with Dame. That's the fundamental difference. If Fox isn't a superstar, there is no window, period. All you have is Mike Conley or young Kyle Lowry being your best player for the next 5 years signed to a max deal. Could he be a superstar? Perhaps, but it is far from certain. If Fox were Booker, or Donovan Mitchell, or Trae Young, or Tatum, or even Brandon Ingram I'd agree with you, because those guys have actually proven something.

Since you keep talking about long term success and deep playoff runs, I went back to look at all the teams in the past 20 years that made the CONFERENCE finals (i.e. the pinnacle of Kings success). Here are the interesting facts. Not many of them were led by players who had not made an all-star team or some form of all-NBA team by year 4, and practically none by year 5. The exceptions were: the 03-08 Pistons, the 04 Pacers, 07 Jazz, '16 Raptors, and '17 Celtics.

- 03-08 PIstons: No young allstars, but Prince was all defense from his third season onwards. Rasheed Wallace had made the WCF and allstar team in his 5th year, other guys like Billups, Rip Hamilton were later to the party.
- 04 Pacers: Artest was already all-defense in year 4, and an all-star in year 5 which was when they made the conf finals. Jermaine O'Neal was an all star in y6.
- 07 Jazz: Boozer made the all star team that year, which was year 5 for him. Deron Williams was in his second year and didn't have the achievements at the time, but went on to make all-NBA by year 3. Team also had Kirilenko who was an allstar and all-defensive team in his 3rd year, but I wouldn't say that the Jazz team was led by him.
- 2016 Raptors: DeRozan had made the all star team in year 5. Lowry was late to the party, only having made an all star team in year 9.
- 2017 Celtics: This is the only one that I think counts as a true exception. The team was a bunch of good team, defensive players ... and Isaiah Thomas, who does not fit my criteria. Nonetheless, the team did have Al Horford, who was an allstar and all NBA guy by his fourth year, but it'd be a stretch to say that the team was led by him.

Other teams that you could argue are technically exceptions:
- 06 Suns: Nash only made an all star team in y6, but the team did have Marion who was an allstar in y4 and Stoudemire (but didn't play that season). Marion did lead the team in scoring.
- 2013 Grizzlies: Marc Gasol did make the allstar team in y4 (and was DPOY by y5), but you could argue he wasn't the key leader given that it was one of those "team effort" rosters.
- 2015-2019 Warriors: Ok fine, Steph made the all star team in his fifth year. Klay and Draymond made it by y4 though.
- 2017 Spurs: Kawhi only made the all star team in year 5, but he was finals MVP in year 3 and DPOY in y4
- 2021 Suns: Depending whether you consider the team's leader as Paul (most do) or Booker (who in any case made the all star team in y5)

If you broaden the criteria to account for leading teams to playoff appearances/winning, the list becomes even smaller.

My logical conclusion from this exercise is that if you're not a pretty established star by year 4, chances are you're not becoming a superstar unless your name is Steve Nash. If you take off the purple glasses, the fact is that a reasonably optimistic case is for Fox to be like DeRozan, and I don't think I need to remind everyone of how the Raptors couldn't get over the hump until they got Kawhi. Do you want to wait another 5 years waiting to POSSIBLY make the playoffs, or wait 4 years for a round 1 exit? I'd rather have Dame for this 2-3 year window, actually make the playoffs NOW, change the whole basketball hell narrative, and attract whatever other talent we can in the process.
Superstar is a relative term in some ways. Right now his production is there and if they start winning even a tad bit more then him being an All-star is a forgone conclusion. You are comparing other franchises with the Kings, that's another issue there, lol. The Kings are in a strange spot because on paper they should be much better than they are. They've gone through a variety of coaches, GM's, etc. over the last 10 years. Even owners. And narrowing your search to conference finals is just that, too narrow because each franchise that gets there goes on some sort path and one that preferably isn't ascenario that involves major subtraction in the process. Answer this, which one of those franchises traded their best young asset for a 30+ year old player to get there? Would Dame change the direction of this franchise by himself? Perhaps but again, if it doesn't work you are just that much farther back on a potential rebuild. Playing it safe to me is the wiser move right now.
 
#90
Why? Some of it is outside factors like fox is doing it despite his team/coach where booker and Trae are doing it after their team has improved. A couple years ago those three were in the same position at the bottom of the league. Add a superstar or multiple good players and good coach and 2 of them automatically are allstar worthy but the other isn’t even tho he is playing statistically better this year? Maybe Kings fan see him as an all star caliber player but being the odd man out in a loaded guard heavy west. Maybe it’s just blind optimism. This is the same fan site that had people who wouldn’t trade dmc for lebron. Dmc was my favorite king and I would have done that any day. Fox is my current fave and if it was Fox for Dame straight up it’s hard to pass that up. The only argument I can see is potential because of age but that also the same reason fans won’t give up a draft pick for a current star. They think the pick can become a better star and ignore the possibility of being a bust or just not as good. It confuses me. I see all these arguments why they wouldn’t, though I don’t agree with most of them, I understand their reasoning.
So firstly, thanks for your response, it sure beats "I wouldn't trade Fox for anything just because he likes Sacramento" posts after I've taken the effort to explain my reasoning and expectation.

To what you said about outside factors, I don't deny that they matter. But I think that with the argument I've put forward (put side Trae and Booker, look at the long list of all the other guys), it is more likely than not that Fox will not be a superstar capable of leading our team to deep playoff runs. And if that's the case, it only makes sense to me that one should be willing to trade him for a legitimate superstar like Dame. Because if he's not a superstar, then the alternative for us to win is via the overall good team route like the Pistons/IT Celtics/Grizzlies. But then again, I'm sure the Pistons would have traded Billups for Iverson (or whatever example, you get what I mean) if they could.