Forecasting Bagley

What is the most likely outcome for Marvin Bagley III?


  • Total voters
    95
#31
Stats and basketball and whatever, who really cares. Our man just dropped a fresh new album today.
“Ain’t you heard the third has the sick beat, mixin up sound like minced meat. MC flowing like no man hittin the hole wit no plan. Ain’t got time for no screens son, got my sights on that next pun. Lillard, you be fittin suits at dillards wishin you could wither. Stick to trail blazin my brotha, leave the MC’in to yo mutha”
 
Last edited:

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#32
Given the phrasing of the question (What is the most likely outcome) I had to go with option 3. An Andre Drummond type of impact is still possible for him if he hits his ceiling and I may adjust my expectations up a notch if he stays healthy and shows out this season. Star level though? He certainly had that level of potential coming out of high school but his block, steal, and assist numbers were all below average in college and the three point shooting ability hasn't shown up yet in the NBA so that's really projecting a lot of growth for a guy who so far looks the part of a two-stat big.

I really don't understand how people are still saying this is his most likely outcome, but I do admire anyone capable of that level of optimism. I also have to question here if Karl Anthony Towns is actually a star level player. Maybe this is getting off topic, but if Andre Drummond is meant to be emblematic of a stat-stuffer whose impact on winning is questionable, can't we say the same thing for Karl Towns? He stuffs a few more stat categories but his team has made the playoffs once when he was the second best player on the team and the guy who was the unquestioned leader of that squad (Jimmy Butler) openly questioned his toughness and/or manhood while demanding a trade shortly thereafter.

To me a star player isn't just a guy who stuffs the stat sheet. That's part of it but they also need to be someone you can rely on to carry the team down the stretch and make big plays in high pressure situations. Your star player is your trump card for beating below average teams and they single-handily make you a factor in the playoffs. Is that actually true of Karl Anthony Towns?
 
Last edited:
#33
To me a star player isn't just a guy who stuffs the stat sheet. That's part of it but they also need to be someone you can rely on to carry the team down the stretch and make big plays in high pressure situations. Your star player is your trump card for beating below average teams and they single-handily make you a factor in the playoffs. Is that actually true of Karl Anthony Towns?
I definitely get what you are saying here. However, he is a rookie of the year, 2 time all star and all nba 3rd team at the age of 25. 24-26 points 12 rebounds and 40 percent from 3 is hard to ignore.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#34
I definitely get what you are saying here. However, he is a rookie of the year, 2 time all star and all nba 3rd team at the age of 25. 24-26 points 12 rebounds and 40 percent from 3 is hard to ignore.
Some of this is devil's advocate I suppose but if I'm building a team and I get to pick one current NBA player to start my roster with, how far down the list am I getting before I pick Towns? At this point, I don't know that he's even in my top 30. Kevin Love also put up monster numbers for years on a terrible Minnesota squad until he ended up as just a pretty good player on a contending team. Rookie of the Year is almost irrelevant here as guys like Michael-Carter Williams and Andrew Wiggins also have that award. The All-Star and All-NBA selections are often awarded based on numbers more than actual competitiveness.

I can also see your point -- if Marvin Bagley is able to give us what Karl Towns is giving Minnesota, that's a guy who has reached his potential and is by the strictest definition of the word, a star in the NBA. It just makes me a little uneasy seeing Towns' name as the top of the scale. Which speaks more to the dismal state of the big man in the NBA right now than the comparative strengths of any individual player. As this relates to Bagley -- if he's a non-factor on defense he'd better be running the offense, shooting the lights out, or the best damn screen-setter in the league before I'm comfortable calling him a star. Especially when we just picked up a guy who averaged 15pts and 13rebs while leading the entire NBA in blocks per game last season for $2.3 million.
 
#36
Some of this is devil's advocate I suppose but if I'm building a team and I get to pick one current NBA player to start my roster with, how far down the list am I getting before I pick Towns? At this point, I don't know that he's even in my top 30. Kevin Love also put up monster numbers for years on a terrible Minnesota squad until he ended up as just a pretty good player on a contending team. Rookie of the Year is almost irrelevant here as guys like Michael-Carter Williams and Andrew Wiggins also have that award. The All-Star and All-NBA selections are often awarded based on numbers more than actual competitiveness.

I can also see your point -- if Marvin Bagley is able to give us what Karl Towns is giving Minnesota, that's a guy who has reached his potential and is by the strictest definition of the word, a star in the NBA. It just makes me a little uneasy seeing Towns' name as the top of the scale. Which speaks more to the dismal state of the big man in the NBA right now than the comparative strengths of any individual player. As this relates to Bagley -- if he's a non-factor on defense he'd better be running the offense, shooting the lights out, or the best damn screen-setter in the league before I'm comfortable calling him a star. Especially when we just picked up a guy who averaged 15pts and 13rebs while leading the entire NBA in blocks per game last season for $2.3 million.
This is why I'm completely against taking big men in the lottery unless they're a unicorn or there are just no other options other than 3&D type guys. Their impact on the game is so minimal these days. I mean look at Anthony Davis? Only 2 playoff trips with the Pelicans as the 6th and 8th seed and that was with better players around him than KAT (outside of the Jimmy Butler season). If it's the early 2000s, I think this guy would have carried his team into the playoffs nearly every year.

I don't know how you would have ranked Cousins against other big men in his prime but lets just say he was the 4th best center back then. If we replace him with the 4th best PG or SG, the Kings probably have a playoff berth on their hands. It's just the way the game is these days and it's why picking Bagley so high was a huge error, even if Luka never existed.

Despite all that, Towns isn't just a stat sheet filler. Analytics have him as one of the best centers in the game. It's just the way the game is played, it's almost impossible for a big man to carry a team on his back.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#37
This is why I'm completely against taking big men in the lottery unless they're a unicorn or there are just no other options other than 3&D type guys. Their impact on the game is so minimal these days. I mean look at Anthony Davis? Only 2 playoff trips with the Pelicans as the 6th and 8th seed and that was with better players around him than KAT (outside of the Jimmy Butler season). If it's the early 2000s, I think this guy would have carried his team into the playoffs nearly every year.

I don't know how you would have ranked Cousins against other big men in his prime but lets just say he was the 4th best center back then. If we replace him with the 4th best PG or SG, the Kings probably have a playoff berth on their hands. It's just the way the game is these days and it's why picking Bagley so high was a huge error, even if Luka never existed.

Despite all that, Towns isn't just a stat sheet filler. Analytics have him as one of the best centers in the game. It's just the way the game is played, it's almost impossible for a big man to carry a team on his back.
All of this is fair. But seeing Karl Anthony Towns listed as a star player got the gears turning toward a bit of an unexpected epiphany for me. Here's my hypothetical question:

Is it possible for a player to be in both the "star player" category and also be in the "you're in trouble if he's the best player on your team" category at the same time?

I think both of us would probably agree that if that player is a big man than yes it is possible, which is very sad and reason enough I think to consider some significant rules changes. It also presents me with the cognitive dissonance of calling somebody a star player who isn't really that big of a factor at the end of the day. And when I look at the roster that carried Miami to the Finals this year, I have to question whether our definition of a star player needs revising. Couldn't it be possible now that a star player is someone who demands a max contract but will never have the impact on the game to warrant it? And if that's the case, isn't it also true that having a star player on your roster could actually decrease your odds of winning?
 
#41
How in the hell can 11 people vote for 20/10/3 while shooting 50/40/80 and playing decent defense. Absolutely absurd , dude shot 31/69 from 3 and Free throw in his rookie year shot 39/63 at Duke and that 39% from 3 is on 60 attempts. Somehow he’s gonna go to 50/80 in the nba which are elite number comical. Jokic is at 31/81, Porzingis 35/79, and Davis 33/83 anybody thinking Bagley will shoot close to these numbers can’t be taken seriously.

We’ll see how he does 20ppg when defenses are game planning for him. He has no right hand and isn’t physical enough to even punish small ball PF. If he starts getting 20 a game teams will start putting there best post defenders on him and game plan for him
Given the phrasing of the question (What is the most likely outcome) I had to go with option 3. An Andre Drummond type of impact is still possible for him if he hits his ceiling and I may adjust my expectations up a notch if he stays healthy and shows out this season. Star level though? He certainly had that level of potential coming out of high school but his block, steal, and assist numbers were all below average in college and the three point shooting ability hasn't shown up yet in the NBA so that's really projecting a lot of growth for a guy who so far looks the part of a two-stat big.

I really don't understand how people are still saying this is his most likely outcome, but I do admire anyone capable of that level of optimism. I also have to question here if Karl Anthony Towns is actually a star level player. Maybe this is getting off topic, but if Andre Drummond is meant to be emblematic of a stat-stuffer whose impact on winning is questionable, can't we say the same thing for Karl Towns? He stuffs a few more stat categories but his team has made the playoffs once when he was the second best player on the team and the guy who was the unquestioned leader of that squad (Jimmy Butler) openly questioned his toughness and/or manhood while demanding a trade shortly thereafter.

To me a star player isn't just a guy who stuffs the stat sheet. That's part of it but they also need to be someone you can rely on to carry the team down the stretch and make big plays in high pressure situations. Your star player is your trump card for beating below average teams and they single-handily make you a factor in the playoffs. Is that actually true of Karl Anthony Towns?
I don't really get the statline and the KAT comparison. KAT only stuffs the stat sheet in a way that Bagley can only ever dream of beyond points and is one of the best big man shooters in NBA history and everything hrdboild said of him is STILL fairly valid.

And KAT's three point shooting being projected onto Bagley's future isn't even the most ludicrous stat of his being projected onto him...
 
#42
I hate seeing him being given the ball on the high post or on the block and being asked to create something. He just needs to be in the pick and roll and running the floor.

He also can't defend his own shadow. Zero IQ. He's more of a Randle type.

Maybe Haliburton will be good for him if they're both coming off the bench.
 
#43
Marvin is 21 years old and has been on the Sacramento Kings. He has had unfortunate injuries that have kept him off the court more than on. The Coaching and Front office has been completely turned over in his short tenure. The Owner is relatively new and is still finding his way. And the fact that he was drafted before the Golden Boy in Dallas will haunt him at every interview.

Now many Fans are saying he is a Center, which he is not. He can play some minutes at the 5 but he is a 4. Remember the beginning of last season when the PED enhanced Ayton injured Marvin? Why have Marvin bang with the Big Boys full time? IMO not a good idea.

Different era I know but Chris and Timmy both refused to be categorized as 5's. Both made their mark as Power Forwards. And I think that position is Marvin's best spot going forward. He has physical advantages at the 4 where he is not over powered by extremely large men. Let Marvin develop his game over time and quit being so damn impatient.

I repeat Marvin is 21 years old.
 
#44
How in the hell can 11 people vote for 20/10/3 while shooting 50/40/80 and playing decent defense. Absolutely absurd , dude shot 31/69 from 3 and Free throw in his rookie year shot 39/63 at Duke and that 39% from 3 is on 60 attempts. Somehow he’s gonna go to 50/80 in the nba which are elite number comical. Jokic is at 31/81, Porzingis 35/79, and Davis 33/83 anybody thinking Bagley will shoot close to these numbers can’t be taken seriously.

We’ll see how he does 20ppg when defenses are game planning for him. He has no right hand and isn’t physical enough to even punish small ball PF. If he starts getting 20 a game teams will start putting there best post defenders on him and game plan for him
so you are saying there’s a chance ?
 
#45
I hate to say it, but I feel like our best scenario going forward is for Marvin to be very good player but not a HUGE stat stuffer that gets him a max contract under some recurring dream he will be a star. We get a top 5 pick next year and select our “superstar” wing. We become a perennial contender with superstar wing, Fox the all star team leader at the point, Marvin the third scorer/rebounder/energy guy, and Tyrese our do everything glue guy. Stick a three shooting/defensive big in to round out the starting five.
 
#46
Most great players don't fit into a box. Gifted players who are allowed to play to their strengths while young have the greatest chance of reaching their potential. Those who are told they can be really good only if they learn to play the "right way" like the less talented peers usually struggle.

Seen it time and time again during my years of coaching. The "right way" coaches routinely throw away talent. Their teams are efficient and mediocre to good at best. The coaches who recognize talent and don't tell players "you can't " or "you will never be" more often field great teams.

There are a lot of things for Marvin to work on. As with any young player. But he scores in bunches and with ease. That can't be ignored. If he scores on a pick and roll, or on a post move, it's still 2 points. You want your players to put the ball in the bucket. I understand the concept of empty stats, but if the only way for your big man to have "meaningful " stats is to play like a point guard, well then you don't have a very good PG.

I have no idea what Marvin's career will look like, but I refuse to say he has no chance. The only way he has no chance is if the people making the decision try to stuff him in a box and make him be something he's not.
 
#47
I hate seeing him being given the ball on the high post or on the block and being asked to create something. He just needs to be in the pick and roll and running the floor.

He also can't defend his own shadow. Zero IQ. He's more of a Randle type.

Maybe Haliburton will be good for him if they're both coming off the bench.
Well, he's terrible at both of those things so yay us I guess.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#48
Some of this is devil's advocate I suppose but if I'm building a team and I get to pick one current NBA player to start my roster with, how far down the list am I getting before I pick Towns? At this point, I don't know that he's even in my top 30. Kevin Love also put up monster numbers for years on a terrible Minnesota squad until he ended up as just a pretty good player on a contending team. Rookie of the Year is almost irrelevant here as guys like Michael-Carter Williams and Andrew Wiggins also have that award. The All-Star and All-NBA selections are often awarded based on numbers more than actual competitiveness.

I can also see your point -- if Marvin Bagley is able to give us what Karl Towns is giving Minnesota, that's a guy who has reached his potential and is by the strictest definition of the word, a star in the NBA. It just makes me a little uneasy seeing Towns' name as the top of the scale. Which speaks more to the dismal state of the big man in the NBA right now than the comparative strengths of any individual player. As this relates to Bagley -- if he's a non-factor on defense he'd better be running the offense, shooting the lights out, or the best damn screen-setter in the league before I'm comfortable calling him a star. Especially when we just picked up a guy who averaged 15pts and 13rebs while leading the entire NBA in blocks per game last season for $2.3 million.
I think we can safely say that if your looking just at stats, Towns is a star in the league. He certainly fills out the stat sheet. So then I assume that the reason for the critical eye is because his team doesn't win. So with that in mind, would you say that Cousins is a comparable comp when he was here on the Kings? Cuz certainly put up big time numbers, but the Kings didn't win. Was that on Cuz, or on his teammates, or perhaps the coaching staff? Or lastly, the cursed Indian burial grounds?

Just playing a little devils advocate here. Would you reject Towns if he wanted to play in Sacramento? Personally I like Towns. Do I think he has that toughness that Butler brings? No, I don't, but that's a unique trait in a super mulit-talented player, which Towns is, and Butler isn't. Remember where Butler comes from. His father split when he as a baby. His mother kicked him out of the house when he was 13 years old. He's been an underdog his whole life. He was the 30th pick in the draft. So yeah, he's tough! He had to be to survive.

Towns on the other hand had an entirely different life. He had a normal family life. His father was a basketball coach. His development took an entirely different path. Not saying he didn't have to work hard, but he had the facilities in which to do it. One wonders how differently Butler would have turned out if he had a similar career path? Would he still have that same toughness, or is it in his gene pool, and he would still be the same player. I certainly don't know, but I would take either of them on my team.
 
#49
Assuming he can stay healthy, I see big empty stats as where he lands. Unfortunately, I think it’s what’s between the ears that’ll keep him from the next tier, not from a BBIQ perspective but from an ego/focus/drive/attitude/passion angle...which I mostly blame his father for. Will take some serious humbling to rectify that.

At least it’s the second best option, I guess.
 
#50
Marvin is 21 years old and has been on the Sacramento Kings. He has had unfortunate injuries that have kept him off the court more than on. The Coaching and Front office has been completely turned over in his short tenure. The Owner is relatively new and is still finding his way. And the fact that he was drafted before the Golden Boy in Dallas will haunt him at every interview.

Now many Fans are saying he is a Center, which he is not. He can play some minutes at the 5 but he is a 4. Remember the beginning of last season when the PED enhanced Ayton injured Marvin? Why have Marvin bang with the Big Boys full time? IMO not a good idea.

Different era I know but Chris and Timmy both refused to be categorized as 5's. Both made their mark as Power Forwards. And I think that position is Marvin's best spot going forward. He has physical advantages at the 4 where he is not over powered by extremely large men. Let Marvin develop his game over time and quit being so damn impatient.

I repeat Marvin is 21 years old.
Tim and Chris were playmakers and Chris wasn’t that big of a liability on defense. The era we play in makes a big difference you can’t play two bigs like that especially when it doesn’t look like Bagley can punish small ball PF’s down low. If Bagley is starting at PF we’re screwed, our center will have to be a very good defender and a guy that can stretch the floor
 
#51
Marvin is 21 years old and has been on the Sacramento Kings. He has had unfortunate injuries that have kept him off the court more than on. The Coaching and Front office has been completely turned over in his short tenure. The Owner is relatively new and is still finding his way. And the fact that he was drafted before the Golden Boy in Dallas will haunt him at every interview.

Now many Fans are saying he is a Center, which he is not. He can play some minutes at the 5 but he is a 4. Remember the beginning of last season when the PED enhanced Ayton injured Marvin? Why have Marvin bang with the Big Boys full time? IMO not a good idea.

Different era I know but Chris and Timmy both refused to be categorized as 5's. Both made their mark as Power Forwards. And I think that position is Marvin's best spot going forward. He has physical advantages at the 4 where he is not over powered by extremely large men. Let Marvin develop his game over time and quit being so damn impatient.

I repeat Marvin is 21 years old.
In this era Bagley is still going to likely have to play as many minutes at 5 as Duncan did. Which was a lot. The game is all based on matchups now anyway. He played fine against Bam and he led a team to the finals playing center exclusively pretty much. If he's a liability defensively but he's one of your offensive go to's then usually those weaknesses are forgiven.
 
#52
Tim and Chris were playmakers and Chris wasn’t that big of a liability on defense. The era we play in makes a big difference you can’t play two bigs like that especially when it doesn’t look like Bagley can punish small ball PF’s down low. If Bagley is starting at PF we’re screwed, our center will have to be a very good defender and a guy that can stretch the floor
See my point is that Marvin has played so little and is still young we are not so sure what he will be. Maybe he can develop his left hand, play defense or even set up a team mate. Maybe he can shoot .340 from 3.

I know CWebb was dead set against playing the 5 for Nelly. In Sac. He played with Vlade at the 5. Pop usually started a Big Center next to Duncan. Both played some 5 later in the game depending on the match ups.

I’m not a fan of running Marvin out as the starting 5. He can play some 5 if not physically over matched .
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#53
I think Marvin is a 5. Maybe not a full time 5 because of the big bruising guys but he needs to be given the chance to play there more. Unless McNair and company also are of the opinion that he’s going to be a Giannis hybrid as Walton was alluding to.
 
#54
Bagley may eventually become a 5, but it won’t be with us. Looking at what McNair did in free agency, it does not appear he’d be enthused with paying Bagley’s $14M option to play the 5, never mind a healthy raise from that to extend him beyond his rookie contract. It would appear that Bagley starts becoming a superstar PF, or big wing, this year or we move on.
 
#55
I don't care if Marvin's a f-n 4 or 5. I just want him to be a player, and a very good one if possible. Marvin is so early in his NBA career that none of us know where he's going to find his niche.

I also don't give a chit about "empty stat" proclamations. Again, too early in his NBA career to know if he's going to be an Olden Polynice or a Kevin Garnett. Personally, I think players with big-time motors like Marvin's are much less likely to have the lazy attributes that tend to result in decisions that benefit the player's stats at the expense of the team's success.
 
#56
Marvin is 21 years old and has been on the Sacramento Kings. He has had unfortunate injuries that have kept him off the court more than on. The Coaching and Front office has been completely turned over in his short tenure. The Owner is relatively new and is still finding his way. And the fact that he was drafted before the Golden Boy in Dallas will haunt him at every interview.

Now many Fans are saying he is a Center, which he is not. He can play some minutes at the 5 but he is a 4. Remember the beginning of last season when the PED enhanced Ayton injured Marvin? Why have Marvin bang with the Big Boys full time? IMO not a good idea.

Different era I know but Chris and Timmy both refused to be categorized as 5's. Both made their mark as Power Forwards. And I think that position is Marvin's best spot going forward. He has physical advantages at the 4 where he is not over powered by extremely large men. Let Marvin develop his game over time and quit being so damn impatient.

I repeat Marvin is 21 years old.
In the NBA you are what you can guard. In Bagley's case he doesn't have a position because he hasn't proven he can guard anyone for any significant stretch of time or contribute to good team defense. To argue over what position he is is pointless until he proves he can guard someone.
 
#57
In the NBA you are what you can guard. In Bagley's case he doesn't have a position because he hasn't proven he can guard anyone for any significant stretch of time or contribute to good team defense. To argue over what position he is is pointless until he proves he can guard someone.
I think you are over stating Marvins defensive shortcomings. Hopefully he gets a chance to play this season and then we will see what he can do.
 
#58
Given the phrasing of the question (What is the most likely outcome) I had to go with option 3. An Andre Drummond type of impact is still possible for him if he hits his ceiling and I may adjust my expectations up a notch if he stays healthy and shows out this season. Star level though? He certainly had that level of potential coming out of high school but his block, steal, and assist numbers were all below average in college and the three point shooting ability hasn't shown up yet in the NBA so that's really projecting a lot of growth for a guy who so far looks the part of a two-stat big.

I really don't understand how people are still saying this is his most likely outcome, but I do admire anyone capable of that level of optimism. I also have to question here if Karl Anthony Towns is actually a star level player. Maybe this is getting off topic, but if Andre Drummond is meant to be emblematic of a stat-stuffer whose impact on winning is questionable, can't we say the same thing for Karl Towns? He stuffs a few more stat categories but his team has made the playoffs once when he was the second best player on the team and the guy who was the unquestioned leader of that squad (Jimmy Butler) openly questioned his toughness and/or manhood while demanding a trade shortly thereafter.

To me a star player isn't just a guy who stuffs the stat sheet. That's part of it but they also need to be someone you can rely on to carry the team down the stretch and make big plays in high pressure situations. Your star player is your trump card for beating below average teams and they single-handily make you a factor in the playoffs. Is that actually true of Karl Anthony Towns?
Hope is always last to die. Regardless I'll be rooting for him to become the best player he can be and I will assume that the best is an all star. If it doesn't happen, I'll still be rooting for him as long as he gives his all in the floor.
 

hrdboild

Hall of Famer
#60
I think we can safely say that if your looking just at stats, Towns is a star in the league. He certainly fills out the stat sheet. So then I assume that the reason for the critical eye is because his team doesn't win. So with that in mind, would you say that Cousins is a comparable comp when he was here on the Kings? Cuz certainly put up big time numbers, but the Kings didn't win. Was that on Cuz, or on his teammates, or perhaps the coaching staff? Or lastly, the cursed Indian burial grounds?

Just playing a little devils advocate here. Would you reject Towns if he wanted to play in Sacramento? Personally I like Towns. Do I think he has that toughness that Butler brings? No, I don't, but that's a unique trait in a super mulit-talented player, which Towns is, and Butler isn't. Remember where Butler comes from. His father split when he as a baby. His mother kicked him out of the house when he was 13 years old. He's been an underdog his whole life. He was the 30th pick in the draft. So yeah, he's tough! He had to be to survive.

Towns on the other hand had an entirely different life. He had a normal family life. His father was a basketball coach. His development took an entirely different path. Not saying he didn't have to work hard, but he had the facilities in which to do it. One wonders how differently Butler would have turned out if he had a similar career path? Would he still have that same toughness, or is it in his gene pool, and he would still be the same player. I certainly don't know, but I would take either of them on my team.
It's been a couple days so I'm not entirely confident about this, but I think the point I was trying to make is that big numbers have a stronger correlation to making All Star teams and All NBA teams than they do to winning championships. If a big man is putting up let's say 25, 13, and 3 with a block and a steal per game there is a 100% chance he's getting a max contract. Because the NBA has a salary cap, that contract is limiting your ability to add other players to your roster. If you instead sign a veteran who can average 12 and 10 with a block per game but who maybe plays a more active role on defense for a fraction of what this hypothetical star is costing you you're getting let's say 70% of the production for 40% of the cost. That sounds like the better deal to me.

What I'm suggesting is that stardom is more about name recognition than ability to win you games. DeMarcus Cousins was a star on the Kings but they didn't win with him. He went to New Orleans to form the most talented front court in recent NBA history and they didn't win either. Not at a level befitting two max players in the same lineup. I was a huge Cousins fan before he played a game in the NBA but I have to admit, knowing what I do now I'm not sure I would draft him again if given the same opportunity and that's not because of his well chronicled attitude concerns its because his skill set is replaceable at cost. If you wanted a shooter this off-season you had to shell out $50-70 million but if you want a starter level big man you could get one for far less. It just doesn't make sense in that context to build your team around a max money big man.

The reason I brought up Miami is that I think most people would have looked at their roster at the start of this season and said they had one star player. But they didn't just make it to the Finals, they dominated the Eastern Conference in the playoffs. They easily handled superstar Giannis and they did it with guys like Bam Adebayo, Duncan Robinson and Tyler Herro playing large roles. Maybe that's not sustainable and Bam is now a max player too so that clouds the picture somewhat but I look at that team and I see a model for success built around stellar team play on both ends and valuing players that no one else cares about. Call it the Spurs model. If my goal is to win a championship I don't need a Demarcus Cousins or a Karl Towns. I don't need a Blake Griffin. I need somebody who is going to be a star player in all the ways that don't earn you a max contract. Valuing possessions, high efficiency low volume scoring, max effort defensive rotations, etc. If I have 8 players who will give me that you can trot out your All Star lineup and I'll still beat you.

And as Kings fans, we should all have this tattooed into our brains by now. We had Cousins, Gay, and Isaiah Thomas in the same lineup and couldn't sniff the playoffs. All the while we're arguing if they're really stars what we should have been arguing about is how having three guys who combine to suck 150% of the air out of the room doesn't allow much opportunity for anyone else to be a (pardon the pun) Tyler Herro on a nightly basis. Well, I guess we did argue about that too but we argue about a lot of things here so it's easy to lose track.

So to answer your question, I would have to say no to Karl Towns if he came to us in free agency and said his life long dream was to play for the Kings unless he's willing to drop his price tag by at least $10 million per year. At the going rate for a Star player, you better be getting either All NBA defense or intangibles up the wazoo to make that level of salary commitment pay off in any tangible way other than jersey sales. I don't want to re-open the whole can of worms related to why big man aren't winning right now or whether you even need a good coach to win with the right players... I just wanted to throw the idea out there that it's quite possible what we lionize as qualities worthy of stardom might have more impact on Sportscenter highlight reels and box score worshiping fantasy hoops than actual on the court success. The NBA knows where it's money is made so they're going to continue promoting the same types of players but if we want to break the cycle of irrelevance we probably should start thinking smarter than that. Maybe Bagley developing into a Star is not the best case scenario for us. Maybe if he's merely a solid player at a more affordable salary who checks his ego at the door and plays to win we can invest those savings into another shooter or playmaker or wing defender and end up with a winning record to show for it.