Fox and/or #4 Trade Ideas

Spike

Spike

Subsidiary Intermediary
Staff member
#61
#61
macadocious said:
That's not what I meant. This is a league predicated on having 3ish top players and role players around them. Trading back for more role players doesnt fix this. We are not an FA destination, but we certainly can get our fair share of role players. We need a star, period. This pick needs to be a homerun. It just does. It's possible that player isn't in this draft, but I'm sure there are a few guys that will be All Stars, we need to get one. Or trade the pick for one.
Click to expand...
That's the gamble. I don't think the 4th best player in this draft would crack the top 10 in other years, so I'd be more open to moving that pick for an impact vet and/or a lower pick.

Edit: I'm also worried about putting our hopes on this #4 pick for the same reason. It's a low bar, and our expectations really should be that of a role player - any "stud" found in this group will be accidental. Jabari Smith Jr. is the clear #1, but...eh. I'm not wowed.
 
Last edited:
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#62
#62
macadocious said:
That's not what I meant. This is a league predicated on having 3ish top players and role players around them. Trading back for more role players doesnt fix this. We are not an FA destination, but we certainly can get our fair share of role players. We need a star, period. This pick needs to be a homerun. It just does. It's possible that player isn't in this draft, but I'm sure there are a few guys that will be All Stars, we need to get one. Or trade the pick for one.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying that it's probably because trading up isn't considered an option to most posters.
 
S

serbiangoat

Starter
#63
#63
If Zac LaVine wants to leave the Bulls than I would offer Fox for LaVine (I don't think he's all that great), he's paid less and a way better fit cause he can shoot with Sabonis
 
Reverend

Reverend

Bench
#64
#64
twslam07 said:
Since we jumped up to #4 yesterday, the floodgates opened up for me in regards to trade ideas/possibilities. Below are some that came to mind:

  1. CHA Gets: Richaun Holmes & #4 / SAC Gets: PJ Washington, Kai Jones, #13, & #15
  2. CHA Gets: Myles Turner / IND Gets: De'Aaron Fox / SAC Gets: Malcolm Brogdon, #13, & #15
  3. DET Gets: Richaun Holmes, Mo Harkless, Alex Len, & #4 / SAC Gets: Jerami Grant & Saddiq Bey
  4. IND Gets: Richaun Holmes, Mo Harkless, Alex Len, & #4 / SAC Gets: Malcolm Brogdon & #6
  5. OKC Gets: Mo Harkless & #4 / SAC Gets: Aleksej Pokusevski, Lu Dort, & #12
  6. ORL Gets: De'Aaron Fox & #4 / SAC Gets: Jonathan Isaac, Markelle Fultz, & #1
  7. POR Gets: De'Aaron Fox, Justin Holiday, Mo Harkless, Alex Len, & #4 / SAC Gets: Damian Lillard & Josh Hart
  8. TOR Gets: Richaun Holmes, Mo Harkless, & #4 / SAC Gets: OG Anunoby & 2023 TOR 1st (Top 14 Protected)
  9. TOR Gets: De'Aaron Fox, Richaun Holmes, Mo Harkless, #4, 2023 SAC 1st (Top 4 Protected), & 2025 SAC 1st (Top 4 Protected) / SAC Gets: Pascal Siakam & Fred VanVleet
Click to expand...
#2 is god awful man are you sure you’re a Kings fan??
 
captain bill

captain bill

Starter
#68
#68
To Portland: Fox, #2 pick (Chet Holmgren) Barnes, Holmes, Filler
To OKC: #4 pick, #7 pick
To Sac: Dame

Portland: Chet is semi-local (Gonzaga) and could be enticing prospect to build around. Fox Barnes Holmes isn’t a long term solution. For an owner looking to sell having that centerpiece could be appealing

OKC: not much comment needed. They’re looking to hit the jackpot so two picks better than one. Dependent on them seeing 2 guys top 10 they see as worth going for + not being all in on the top 30

Sac: score a billion point a game with a guy from NorCal and try to break the streak
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#69
#69
Saw Ham talk about using the 4 and Barnes or Holmes or something to get John Collins. If they traded any of Ivey, Sharpe, or Murray for Collins that would be horrendous. Not only would that take away a better talent IMO at 4 it would probably eliminate their chances to have max space next summer. smh.
 
Telemachus

Telemachus

Starter
#70
#70
captain bill said:
To Portland: Fox, #2 pick (Chet Holmgren) Barnes, Holmes, Filler
To OKC: #4 pick, #7 pick
To Sac: Dame

Portland: Chet is semi-local (Gonzaga) and could be enticing prospect to build around. Fox Barnes Holmes isn’t a long term solution. For an owner looking to sell having that centerpiece could be appealing

OKC: not much comment needed. They’re looking to hit the jackpot so two picks better than one. Dependent on them seeing 2 guys top 10 they see as worth going for + not being all in on the top 30

Sac: score a billion point a game with a guy from NorCal and try to break the streak
Click to expand...
You want to give up Fox, the 4th pick, Barnes and Holmes for a soon to be 32 year old Dame? Who also happens to be coming off an injury that had him miss most of last season. That would be a No from me.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#71
#71
sactowndog said:
So how about
#4 and Next years #1 top 1 protected

To OKC for
#2

Kings
Sabonis - Holmes
Smith - Lyles
Barnes - Free agent
DDV - Davis
Fox - Mitchell
Click to expand...
I think OKC will want unprotected FRP for the extra bullet at Wembanyama. If they don't value the bigs in the draft all that highly, get the guy they want then get to sweat the Kings somehow KANGZing things up next year and we still suck? Seems like a reasonable bet.

For us, I'd do it, unprotected. Seems fairly likely the 2023 pick would be shopped anyway and you get to invest perfectly in a high upside/perfectly fitting piece with your two stud guys. If the next 2 years is the time to fire all-in, I'd be more than down to shove with Jabari or Chet as the final piece.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#72
#72
SacTownKid said:
Saw Ham talk about using the 4 and Barnes or Holmes or something to get John Collins. If they traded any of Ivey, Sharpe, or Murray for Collins that would be horrendous. Not only would that take away a better talent IMO at 4 it would probably eliminate their chances to have max space next summer. smh.
Click to expand...
Yea Barnes+ 7-9 is a lot different than Barnes+4. I'd absolutely want Hunter or Okongwu coming back with Collins
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#74
#74
The_Jamal said:
I think OKC will want unprotected FRP for the extra bullet at Wembanyama. If they don't value the bigs in the draft all that highly, get the guy they want then get to sweat the Kings somehow KANGZing things up next year and we still suck? Seems like a reasonable bet.

For us, I'd do it, unprotected. Seems fairly likely the 2023 pick would be shopped anyway and you get to invest perfectly in a high upside/perfectly fitting piece with your two stud guys. If the next 2 years is the time to fire all-in, I'd be more than down to shove with Jabari or Chet as the final piece.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m down for it also. Even if it costs us 1 to do it. When you are in the top 5 you have to take a swing at an all star caliber player.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#75
#75
captain bill said:
To Portland: Fox, #2 pick (Chet Holmgren) Barnes, Holmes, Filler
To OKC: #4 pick, #7 pick
To Sac: Dame

Portland: Chet is semi-local (Gonzaga) and could be enticing prospect to build around. Fox Barnes Holmes isn’t a long term solution. For an owner looking to sell having that centerpiece could be appealing

OKC: not much comment needed. They’re looking to hit the jackpot so two picks better than one. Dependent on them seeing 2 guys top 10 they see as worth going for + not being all in on the top 30

Sac: score a billion point a game with a guy from NorCal and try to break the streak
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? Dame is old and declining. This might be the worst trade I have ever seen posted.
 
J

joemama

Starter
#76
#76
What about Andrew Wiggins?

There are a few articles about the need to move on (such as The $160 million dollar reason an Andrew Wiggins trade might be unavoidable).

Kings get big 3 - fox sabonis wiggins
Warriors get #4, Holmes (Looney is a free agent), and expirings. I could see Holiday and Hark thriving in GS, and I think Holmes could fit right in. Ivey's slashing fits great with all their shooters.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#77
#77
joemama said:
What about Andrew Wiggins?

There are a few articles about the need to move on (such as The $160 million dollar reason an Andrew Wiggins trade might be unavoidable).

Kings get big 3 - fox sabonis wiggins
Warriors get #4, Holmes (Looney is a free agent), and expirings. I could see Holiday and Hark thriving in GS, and I think Holmes could fit right in. Ivey's slashing fits great with all their shooters.
Click to expand...
Wiggins is a role player. You don’t trade 4 for a role player.
 
J

joemama

Starter
#78
#78
sactowndog said:
Wiggins is a role player. You don’t trade 4 for a role player.
Click to expand...
Wiggins was an all-star, so I would have to disagree.

He is 27 and really seemed to have "figured it out."

He shot 38% from downtown last year and 39% this year.

He is playing 32 mpg on a championship-caliber team.

His FT% is terrible, but the 4.5 rebounds a night is nice for a wing.

He averages over 19 points per game in his career, Barnes is at 14; Fox is at 19, for comparison.

I wouldn't really call him a "role player," he could be a first option on offense for us.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#80
#80
joemama said:
Wiggins was an all-star, so I would have to disagree.

He is 27 and really seemed to have "figured it out."

He shot 38% from downtown last year and 39% this year.

He is playing 32 mpg on a championship-caliber team.

His FT% is terrible, but the 4.5 rebounds a night is nice for a wing.

He averages over 19 points per game in his career, Barnes is at 14; Fox is at 19, for comparison.

I wouldn't really call him a "role player," he could be a first option on offense for us.
Click to expand...
He got voted in by SF fans and was not deserving. He plays off of Steph and unless you have Steph to provide him easy looks at the Rim you will be disappointed. He has never been a first option and failed whenever people tried to make him one. He would be a more expensive Harrison Barnes going to Dallas. Trading 4 for that would be a disaster.
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#81
#81
sactowndog said:
He got voted in by SF fans and was not deserving. He plays off of Steph and unless you have Steph to provide him easy looks at the Rim you will be disappointed. He has never been a first option and failed whenever people tried to make him one. He would be a more expensive Harrison Barnes going to Dallas. Trading 4 for that would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Only if whoever else was available at 4 didn't turn out to be a better player than Wiggins (or if a better player isn't available in trade).

Everyone keeps projecting such great results from the draft every year, and it seems like every year some top picks flame out spectacularly. ;) Getting a good to great player in trade (I'm not considering any specific salary here, just hypotheticals) may be better than any player available at that pick.

I'm not arguing for or against this, I'm just saying we have folks constantly speaking in absolutes without considering all the ramifications.
 
J

joemama

Starter
#82
#82
sactowndog said:
He got voted in by SF fans and was not deserving. He plays off of Steph and unless you have Steph to provide him easy looks at the Rim you will be disappointed. He has never been a first option and failed whenever people tried to make him one. He would be a more expensive Harrison Barnes going to Dallas. Trading 4 for that would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight.

This type of trade helps both teams. We move Holmes, clear some players off our roster, and get a chance to compete next year (as that is supposedly the goal).

What if Sharpe busts?
What if Manthurin ceiling is Wiggins?

A team like GS can take a swing on a player like Sharpe or Ivey. We can get a known commodity and save us some real tough decisions.

I'm not convinced Wiggins is "the" answer, but we do need talent. I would like to hear other suggestions of a player that is as available.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#83
#83
joemama said:
Wiggins was an all-star, so I would have to disagree.

He is 27 and really seemed to have "figured it out."

He shot 38% from downtown last year and 39% this year.

He is playing 32 mpg on a championship-caliber team.

His FT% is terrible, but the 4.5 rebounds a night is nice for a wing.

He averages over 19 points per game in his career, Barnes is at 14; Fox is at 19, for comparison.

I wouldn't really call him a "role player," he could be a first option on offense for us.
Click to expand...
Lord almighty.

Andrew, is that you? Posting on KF.com?
 
E

ESP47

All-Star
#84
#84
Wiggins is much better than he used to be when he was on the TWolves but he's still not all that great. His counting stats make him look better than he really is. He's no longer a black hole and a net negative but he's definitely not worth a top 5 pick in any draft, no matter how weak the draft seems.

He wouldn't give the Kings a big 3 when the Kings have Barnes and Barnes is better than Wiggins and puts up very similar stats at a much more efficient rate.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#85
#85
Nothing against Wiggins but his salary requires us moving 2-3 useful players (including the pick) to acquire one. I think that puts us in a huge hole.

I'm not sure why when we are able to acquire a plug and play piece that will fill an immediate need we are so desperate to shop the pick in this way.
 
captain bill

captain bill

Starter
#86
#86
sactowndog said:
Are you kidding? Dame is old and declining. This might be the worst trade I have ever seen posted.
Click to expand...
You obviously haven’t read enough of my trade ideas!

And personally I would’ve preferred we built around Haliburton and had a longer timeline but if we are trying to make the playoffs in the next 2 years Dame-Sabonis could be a good place to start
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#87
#87
Warhawk said:
Only if whoever else was available at 4 didn't turn out to be a better player than Wiggins (or if a better player isn't available in trade).

Everyone keeps projecting such great results from the draft every year, and it seems like every year some top picks flame out spectacularly. ;) Getting a good to great player in trade (I'm not considering any specific salary here, just hypotheticals) may be better than any player available at that pick.

I'm not arguing for or against this, I'm just saying we have folks constantly speaking in absolutes without considering all the ramifications.
Click to expand...
There are not ramifications. If you are picking top 5 your goal should be getting a multi year all star …. End of story. You alternative is to be the Kings and miss out on the play-offs for the longest streak ever.
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#88
#88
sactowndog said:
There are not ramifications. If you are picking top 5 your goal should be getting a multi year all star …. End of story. You alternative is to be the Kings and miss out on the play-offs for the longest streak ever.
Click to expand...
That's...what I'm saying, and yes those are ramifications. Your goal should always be to obtain an all star that produces for your team. But if that player doesn't appear to be available at 4 in the draft, widen your search to find an equivalent on the open market in trade. And if an all star doesn't appear to be obtainable in the draft or open market, then you shift down to star player. Regardless of the use of the asset, you get the best player you can that fits what you need to do (or just BPA if you are in our situation). But that doesn't mean it has to be in the draft. Use the asset to get the best return, regardless if you use it to actually draft a player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.