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.