Game -5: Sacramento Kings v. Brooklyn Nets. 10/11/14 10 PM PST 1PM Chinese Time (I Think)

[Bricklayer]

So how are we getting Martin withou giving up Ben

We aren't. And that is fine.

It would be a double strengthening move. Having Kevin come in as an experienced 3rd scorer strengthens the starting SG spot. And having Stauskas slide back to reserve SG strengthens that spot too by giving us a shooter/ballhandler with headiness rather than another athlete struggling to find a game. It adds 5 wins not because Kevin is a big ++ player, but because he displaces a negative situation that can hold us back.

 

[dude12]

Luc is hardly a solid vet after all his injuries. Remember we only gave a 2nd rounder for him so let's not pretend he was solid.

If you go back in time, KF forum was fairly upset that we got rid of Luc in that trade....he filled a role for us and was good given the time. Because Minnesota didn't use him, that's their problem because ...they could have used him. Anyway, the point is I disagree with your assessment on Ben on his improvement and his trade value.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

We aren't. And that is fine.

It would be a double strengthening move. Having Kevin come in as an experienced 3rd scorer strengthens the starting SG spot. And having Stauskas slide back to reserve SG strengthens that spot too by giving us a shooter/ballhandler with headiness rather than another athlete struggling to find a game. It adds 5 wins not because Kevin is a big ++ player, but because he displaces a negative situation that can hold us back.

Trading Ben for Martin would also leave us with zero assets to chase any kind of significant upgrade elsewhere on the roster. Trade Derrick and Ben for Martin, and what do we have left? A trade exception only worth roughly $5 million (which we can't combine with any other player's salary in a trade) and Reggie Evans' expiring. Thats it. So you've placed all of your eggs in the Collison/Martin/Rudy/JT/Cousins basket and are praying its enough. So while you've filled the third option hole left behind by IT's departure, you've hamstrung efforts to acquire any top-end defender to the roster.

And not only that, but from what I've seen, Ben's already a defensive improvement over Martin. I've seen Ben stick on DeRozan twice now and I've come away satisfied each time. DeRozan may have ended up with big stats by roasting Stauskas but Ben did a satisfactory job on him. He's pesky and he's gotten much smoother at navigating screens. First impressions may be hard to shake, but Ben's clearly come a long way from the lost, wide-eyed rookie he was at this time last year. Martin on the other hand has never defended well at all in his career, even when he tried. And being 31, he's certain face athletic decline.

Lastly, trading Ben for Martin would be severely overpaying. Some are convinced that Ben has no trade value right now, which is absurd. Ben's not the first rookie to struggle with his jumper and he won't be the last. He's a 21 year old freak athlete on a rookie deal. And lets not pretend that we've seen enough this preseason to conclude that Ben's jumper is broken. He's shot 4/9 from three point range in three games. Stauskas? Exact same percentage, 4/9. There is not only value in Ben but a useful player as well.

We ought to let Ben rebuild some of that trade value by showing his improvement in a larger sample size. That could either result in a young SG of the future or a trade asset to acquire a top-end defender. No need to cripple our flexibility at this time.

 

[Bricklayer]

Ben is in a platoon now and quite possibly the 4th best guard on the roster. He's not rebuilding trade value averaging 7ppg and hurting the team everytime he is on the floor. His trade value, whatever it is, is entirely based upon his college career and year old scouting reports getting older by the day. Every day that those sources of lingering value recede further into the past is a day of decline, not gain. Its not much different than the DWill situation.

We're not running a farm team anymore. We're trying to win, loading up on vets. Have an owner mandate. Managing to parlay a failed rookie into a #3 option would be a flat coup for a little berg like Sacramento.

 

[Chubbs]

Kmart would be a step up over our young guys short term, no doubt, but what's the goal here? Losing in the first round? Getting Ben out of the rotation? Cause that's all Martin brings you. Maybe. Just a chance at the 8 spot. That does indeed sound spectacular after many years of losing, but if the cost of Martin is Nik or Ben, I'm not ready to do that. Ben/Nik both have higher upsides than Martin ever did. Plus, as currently constructed, there's always Sessions available to play SG at times, if neither Ben nor Nik is getting it done. Sessions is a much better bargain.

I don't see why Collison/Sessions can't in effect be the third option production wise.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Ben is in a platoon now and quite possibly the 4th best guard on the roster. He's not rebuilding trade value averaging 7ppg and hurting the team everytime he is on the floor. His trade value, whatever it is, is entirely based upon his college career and year old scouting reports getting older by the day. Every day that those sources of lingering value recede further into the past is a day of decline, not gain. Its not much different than the DWill situation.

We're not running a farm team anymore. We're trying to win, loading up on vets. Have an owner mandate. Managing to parlay a failed rookie into a #3 option would be a flat coup for a little berg like Sacramento.

I would hardly call a 31 year old in decline locked in for another three years a coup, especially considering his waning athleticism and thus waning shot at being even mediocre defensively. I'd roll my dice with an improving 21 year old one year removed from a lottery selection rather than burning assets for someone who will not budge the needle defensively.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Martin averaged a three-year best in scoring and rebounding, and never really relied on his athleticism, anyway. You have an unusual definition of "decline."

 

[HereWeBoogie]

i would really prefer not to have to watch Kevin Martin dribbling into defenders and throwing up his patented flop one footed shots to get to the free throw line

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Yeah, who needs a guy who can get the other team in foul trouble?

 

[Bricklayer]

Ben/Nik both have higher upsides than Martin ever did.

No. That's a sign of too many punchdrunk years of lottery drafting after lottery drafting with their eternal "potential". Kevin Martin went 5 straight years averaging 20ppg+, with 24.6ppg as a peak. I like Stauskas, but just this quick you can say that's a 5% outcome for him. He doesn't show star stuff. He shows all around glue guy stuff. And Ben...as good as b-r searches are, I wish they could be further refined. Those represent top 5% possible outcomes for both guys. And here's the other thing: one of these guys has already been traded, he/we just don't know it yet. The moment Stauskas was drafted, one of the two guys was not long for the Kingdom. What this is is the same thing as many of our other moves: making the team rational. Stacking back to back lottery picks at the same position? Not rational. Swapping one of them for proven a proven NBA scorer to hold down the position until the other is ready? 100% rational and team building 101.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Martin averaged a three-year best in scoring and rebounding, and never really relied on his athleticism, anyway. You have an unusual definition of "decline."

Scoring? Two of the last three years were Martin's worst in TS% since his rookie year.

Rebounding? His rebounding rate the last three years have been the absolute worst of his career.

His PER the last three years have been the worst three year stretch since his rookie year.

He has always relied on his quickness to draw contact (some would consider it flopping) to get to the free throw line. His last three years were his worst in getting to the free throw line.

Perhaps mine is not the "unusual" definition of decline here.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

In the aggregate, yes, which is why I pointed out the three-year high. You seem content to look at the aggregate numbers being down in order to ignore the fact that, last year, they trended back up. Normally, when numbers go down, and then they go back up, that's the opposite of a decline so, yeah, I'm sticking with you being the one with the unusual definition.

 

[pshn80]

Scoring? Two of the last three years were Martin's worst in TS% since his rookie year.

Rebounding? His rebounding rate the last three years have been the absolute worst of his career.

His PER the last three years have been the worst three year stretch since his rookie year.

He has always relied on his quickness to draw contact (some would consider it flopping) to get to the free throw line. His last three years were his worst in getting to the free throw line.

Perhaps mine is not the "unusual" definition of decline here.

Points well taken. Means he is probably available and at a decent price. I think that is why he was suggested. Go get him.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

In the aggregate, yes, which is why I pointed out the three-year high. You seem content to look at the aggregate numbers being down in order to ignore the fact that, last year, they trended back up. Normally, when numbers go down, and then they go back up, that's the opposite of a decline so, yeah, I'm sticking with you being the one with the unusual definition.

If you're going to isolate the three worse years of his career (which happen to be the last three) and point at that the least worst one happened to be last year as evidence that Martin is not in decline while ignoring the overall downward arc of his career, go ahead. The usual response to a one year fluctuation would not be evidence of a trend's reversal. So I'm going to stick with you having an odd definition of not declining.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Points well taken. Means he is probably available and at a decent price. I think that is why he was suggested. Go get him.

It was suggested we put together a Ben + DWill package for Martin, which would leave us fresh out of assets to make any other big trade. Now, if you want to put together a package centered around, say, Landry for Martin, I'm far more open to listen. Its all relative to the price.

 

[dude12]

Yeah, who needs a guy who can get the other team in foul trouble?

Sessions is capable of getting to the line as well as KMart. I'm down with a Ben trade but I just don't think KMart is an upgrade over the potential combo guards giving us what he has to offer.

 

[upinsmoke]

Ben is in a platoon now and quite possibly the 4th best guard on the roster. He's not rebuilding trade value averaging 7ppg and hurting the team everytime he is on the floor. His trade value, whatever it is, is entirely based upon his college career and year old scouting reports getting older by the day. Every day that those sources of lingering value recede further into the past is a day of decline, not gain. Its not much different than the DWill situation.

We're not running a farm team anymore. We're trying to win, loading up on vets. Have an owner mandate. Managing to parlay a failed rookie into a #3 option would be a flat coup for a little berg like Sacramento.

Ben's a project that's for sure but to say his situation mirrors D-Will's is false. Ben has been praised for his work ethic by Coach and his peers. Results from hard work and determination are not always immediate but I have faith in the young man and coach Malone to mold him into the player we need him to be.

 

[Bricklayer]

Sessions is capable of getting to the line as well as KMart. I'm down with a Ben trade but I just don't think KMart is an upgrade over the potential combo guards giving us what he has to offer.

He is a floor stretcher. That alone would separate him from everyone on our team but Stauskas even if we had other guys of a similar caliber, which we do not.

 

[The_Jamal]

If you go back in time, KF forum was fairly upset that we got rid of Luc in that trade....he filled a role for us and was good given the time. Because Minnesota didn't use him, that's their problem because ...they could have used him. Anyway, the point is I disagree with your assessment on Ben on his improvement and his trade value.

Not really. Most understand the necessity for such a trade on a team without any assets. And before the Rudy Gay trade, he made a ton of sense in a position we had NO future at and possibly could have snuck out a future starter for a Mbah. Obviously, the Rudy experiment turned out far better than expected and D-Will flamed out once he went to the bench and lost the starting minutes. And while we would now much rather have Mbah, bad knees at all. there's no doubt at the time that the trade was a good one.

 

[ESP47]

We're better at C and SF than the Suns. We don't need our guards to be better than theirs. We just need our guards to hold their own.

I'm not saying Stauskas is better than anyone until he's played some real NBA games and showed something on a consistent basis. Recent Kings history, let alone NBA history should tell you you don't know what you've got until the games are played. Preseason doesn't predict a whole lot.

Kevin Martin was on a team with KLove, Rubio, Pekocivh and Brewer as starters and they still didn't break .500. He couldn't help get them get over the hump. So there's that to think about too.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Martin just being a huge upgrade over what we have. I know Kevin Martin isn't a franchise changer or anything. But if we could get him at a good price, it would be worth it.

Think about the offense when Ben is out there. When he touches the ball, something bad happens way more often than not. He's either clanking a deep shot off the rim, getting the ball stolen, causing an offensive foul or blowing a point blank layup. Martin on the other hand is an excellent 3rd option. When he's not the focal point of the offense he's efficient, efficient from 3 and can draw fouls. Their defense is equal as of right now so the only thing we'd be gaining is a rock solid 3rd scoring option who can spread the floor and get to the line without disrupting anything. It's a massive upgrade over what we have right now because we are almost literally playing 4 on 5 when Ben is out there on the offensive end.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If you're going to isolate the three worse years of his career (which happen to be the last three) and point at that the least worst one happened to be last year as evidence that Martin is not in decline while ignoring the overall downward arc of his career, go ahead. The usual response to a one year fluctuation would not be evidence of a trend's reversal. So I'm going to stick with you having an odd definition of not declining.

Really? Because when I look at his numbers last year, I ask myself:

1. Was last year one of his worst three scoring-wise (your assertion)? No.
2. Was last year one of his worst three rebounding wise? No.
3. Was last year one of his worst three in FT attempts? No.
4. Was last year one of his worst three in 3PT percentage? No. And, not only no, it wasn't even in the bottom half. In fact, Martin has only had three seasons where he shot better from three than he did last year.
5. Do his numbers from last year, in fact, reflect bottom-three numbers for his career in any category? Only TS%, and any poster who's been here for any length of time knows how much I value that particular metric.

Martin's numbers dropped when he got injured, and then they dropped again, when he went from a #1 option to a sixth man, and then he went back to being a #2 option, and his numbers "magically" got better. Except it wasn't magic. His numbers went down when his role changed for the worse, and they went back up when they changed for the better again. So yeah, I was right the first time, no decline.

 

[The_Jamal]

What's interesting about the recent Martin hype in this thread is that he's just as ball dominant/stopper as IT, if not moreso because Martin isn't near the playmaker that IT was. People are talking like he's like a JJ Reddick/Ray Allen type... he's not. Martin does have the year where he was able to effectively slide into that 3rd option role, but that was also with KD and Westbrook, 2 top 5 players and far better playmakers than our 2 top guys.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

It was suggested we put together a Ben + DWill package for Martin, which would leave us fresh out of assets to make any other big trade. Now, if you want to put together a package centered around, say, Landry for Martin, I'm far more open to listen. Its all relative to the price.

I don't know if I really see Ben fitting in a trade for Martin from the Minnesota perspective. Minny has a serious glut (with a ton of youth) at the wing: Wiggins, LaVine, Muhammad, Brewer, Budinger on top of Martin, and Mo Williams and J.J. Barea who might steal some extra minutes there as well. Minny's roster is kind of a mess, but McLemore would be completely lost there (and with Thaddeus Young and Anthony Bennett, so would Derrick Williams). I suppose that Landry might make some sense for them as he could back up the 4 and allow Young/Bennett to swing over the the 3 a bit, but there would be no monetary savings for Minny in that case.

Perhaps it really comes down to what kind of deals we can put together using Williams' contract. If Martin is as good as it gets, then I suppose it wouldn't kill us to pull the trigger - and I can see Minnesota doing that just to clear future salary and open space for their kids on the wing. But I'd like to make sure that we can't have another, better deal lined up using Williams before settling for Martin's age 31-33 seasons.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Really? Because when I look at his numbers last year, I ask myself:

1. Was last year one of his worst three scoring-wise (your assertion)? No.

This is just flat out wrong. It was his worst scoring year since his rookie year. His TS% was never lower since his rookie year.

Was last year one of his worst three rebounding wise? No.

Wrong again. Last year was his third worst season in his career regarding rebounding percentage, and his last three years have been by far the worst rebounding years of his career.

Was last year one of his worst three in FT attempts? No.

Well perhaps not his worst in aggregate amount of free throw attempts over the entire season, which is an odd measure to use. But his free throw rate was never worse than it was two seasons ago, and was still bottom three in his career last year.

Was last year one of his worst three in 3PT percentage? No. And, not only no, it wasn't even in the bottom half. In fact, Martin has only had three seasons where he shot

better from three than he did last year.

Which is great if we were looking for a shooter, but Martin's supposed value is in his scoring, which has been in a trend screaming decline since his peak years.

Do his numbers from last year, in fact, reflect bottom-three numbers for his career in any category? Only TS%, and any poster who's been here for any length of time knows how much I value that particular metric.

Lowest WS/48 since his rookie season. Lowest offensive rating since his rookie year. Lower PER ratings in the last three years since any year since his second year. This plus his above noted lows in TS%, Rebouding percentage, free throw rate, etc. You may object to TS%, but that makes you the unusual one, not me; its been adopted by every front office in the NBA and pretty much every major website that carries statistics.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

What's interesting about the recent Martin hype in this thread is that he's just as ball dominant/stopper as IT, if not moreso because Martin isn't near the playmaker that IT was. People are talking like he's like a JJ Reddick/Ray Allen type... he's not. Martin does have the year where he was able to effectively slide into that 3rd option role, but that was also with KD and Westbrook, 2 top 5 players and far better playmakers than our 2 top guys.

Well, except that:

1. A much higher percentage of Martin's baskets are assisted versus Thomas (50/87 percent on 2-pt/3-pt, respectively, versus 28/63), since you're making the comparison. So, even if Martin is dominating the ball, he's giving it back up at some point.
2. Martin has, over the course of his career, shown more of a willingness to defer; he certainly doesn't seem to be motivated by being the best (insert descriptor here) of all time.
3. Maybe it's just me, but I would rather someone who's a ball-stopper not be the starting point guard.

 

[biltalent]

We really should've traded for Afflalo this offseason. Probably wouldn't have to give up Ben, considering what Denver gave up .
I Like the idea of trading for Martin though, but I don't see it happen.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

This is just flat out wrong. It was his worst scoring year since his rookie year. His TS% was never lower since his rookie year.

Only if, by "worst," you actually meant "fifth-worst" (cite). From someone who's played ten years in the league; it was a point away from being in the top half of his career.

Wrong again. Last year was his third worst season in his career regarding rebounding percentage, and his last three years have been by far the worst rebounding years of his career.

Fourth-worst (cite).

Well perhaps not his worst in aggregate amount of free throw attempts over the entire season, which is an odd measure to use. But his free throw rate was never worse than it was two seasons ago, and was still bottom three in his career last year.

Again, fifth-worst (cite). And I remind you, we're talking about a ten-year vet, not a twenty-year vet. Fifth-worst doesn't mean the same thing, relatively speaking.

Which is great if we were looking for a shooter, but Martin's supposed value is in his scoring, which has been in a trend screaming decline since his peak years.

His points per-36 and per-100 poss. were still in the top half of his career, and his actual, real-life points per game were just outside of that. More importantly, we want someone who can be a scorer as a #3 option. Kevin Martin has never scored more points per game in his career than he did last year, when he was not the Number One option.

You seem to be overlooking that very important point, and that's where your argument breaks down. All of the years where Martin was more productive was when he was the #1, go-to guy. All of them. In fact, last year was noteworthy in that it was only the second time in his career that he averaged 15+ ppg when at least two of his teammates also averaged 15+ ppg (Love and Pekovic. The first time was with Artest and Bibby). Last year wasn't the first time that Martin wasn't the #1 option, but it's the first time that he wasn't the #1 option and been that productive. When you find me numbers that prove otherwise, then I'll believe that he's in decline. To the contrary, last season was the first indication of his entire career that he's actually capable of playing with other scorers, and still being useful.

 

[Livinthedream]

I'm thinking more along the lines of Martin just being a huge upgrade over what we have. I know Kevin Martin isn't a franchise changer or anything. But if we could get him at a good price, it would be worth it.

Think about the offense when Ben is out there. When he touches the ball, something bad happens way more often than not. He's either clanking a deep shot off the rim, getting the ball stolen, causing an offensive foul or blowing a point blank layup. Martin on the other hand is an excellent 3rd option. When he's not the focal point of the offense he's efficient, efficient from 3 and can draw fouls. Their defense is equal as of right now so the only thing we'd be gaining is a rock solid 3rd scoring option who can spread the floor and get to the line without disrupting anything. It's a massive upgrade over what we have right now because we are almost literally playing 4 on 5 when Ben is out there on the offensive end.

Preseason so far:

Nik: 9.7ppg 1.3Reb 0.7 Ast 0.7 stl 2.0 TO

Ben: 9.3ppg 1.3Reb 0.7 Ast 0.7 stl 1.0 TO

Where is Ben being clearly out played and hurting the offense? Turn overs? No. Points? No. Personal fouls? Nik has 3.7 per game. Ben has 1.8 fouls a game. Nik shooting 55%. Ben shooting a more than respectul 46%.

I know you didn't compare Ben to Nik in your quote, but you're implying that Ben is the reason we need an upgrade and Nik is the better backup. I'm not so sure it's clear. Especially when you factor in defense. Maybe Nik should go so we keep some perimeter D off the bench. With Martin's offense, Nik would then be expendable, would he not? Just putting it out there.

I'm not personally looking to trade our young players so easily, but if we are throwing out scenarios to get Martin, then that is something to consider.

 

[The_Jamal]

Only if, by "worst," you actually meant "fifth-worst" (cite). From someone who's played ten years in the league; it was a point away from being in the top half of his career.

Fourth-worst (cite).

Again, fifth-worst (cite). And I remind you, we're talking about a ten-year vet, not a twenty-year vet. Fifth-worst doesn't mean the same thing, relatively speaking.

His points per-36 and per-100 poss. were still in the top half of his career, and his actual, real-life points per game were just outside of that. More importantly, we want someone who can be a scorer as a #3 option. Kevin Martin has never scored more points per game in his career than he did last year, when he was not the Number One option.

You seem to be overlooking that very important point, and that's where your argument breaks down. All of the years where Martin was more productive was when he was the #1, go-to guy. All of them. In fact, last year was noteworthy in that it was only the second time in his career that he averaged 15+ ppg when at least two of his teammates also averaged 15+ ppg (Love and Pekovic. The first time was with Artest and Bibby). Last year wasn't the first time that Martin wasn't the #1 option, but it's the first time that he wasn't the #1 option and been that productive. When you find me numbers that prove otherwise, then I'll believe that he's in decline. To the contrary, last season was the first indication of his entire career that he's actually capable of playing with other scorers, and still being useful.

His argument doesn't break down at all and he's provided all the evidence needed to do so. You just use horrible statistics.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Horrible, as in tangible? Using PPG to assess a player's scoring is a "horrible" statistic?