Harrison Barnes

#1
So, I guess it's time to talk about Barnes.

After the blockbuster KP trade, there could be some more movement - maybe Harrison Barnes gets put on the trade block.

He fills our most obvious need at SF, but should we be interested if he's available? And if so, at what cost?

He has a player option for next year, and it's costly. His play hasn't lived up to his contract, so I can only imagine his value on the open market wouldn't be anywhere near his current contract. It's pretty much a guarantee he exercises his option.

He's only 26 years old and he's not a bad player. He could be anywhere from our #1 to #5 scorer on any given night depending on how things shake out between Fox, Buddy, Bogdan, Bagley etc... We seem to have a different scoring leader every game.

I don't know what he brings on defense and I'm not familiar with his play style so it would be hard for me to determine how he fits our system.

What do you think?
 

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#2
Do it. I think he'd fit the team just fine. He has that Warriors experience and the Kings could use his physicality. He can iso and get to the line effectively. I like him much better than Porter for a bunch of different reasons. His contract is shorter. He's more athletic. He's a better iso player. Defensively he's up and down but he's got the tools to defend. The Kings would finally have that true 3/4 combo they haven't had, well, in forever.
 
#10
As an ardent UNC fan, I was excited over the possibility of the KINGS landing Harrison Barnes in the 2012 draft. In hindsight, he'd have been a much better selection than Thomas Robinson (but so would Lilliard and Drummond).

But fast forward to 2019 and I'm not nearly as enthusiastic about him. He's not a bad player by any means, but I'm just not wild about the fit with the KINGS as @ockingsfan pointed out.
 
#11
#12
Had 27 pts last night vs Detroit in Loss, 10 for 24 FG, No Luka in game
Does sound like the article, good scorer, but black hole?
 
#13
The thing about Barnes with the Mavs is that, after signing that huge contract he was expected to be the lead scorer and go to guy. He must've took it upon himself to do that, partially leading to the so-called "ball-stopper" label. With a lesser role I would hope he plays more like he did in his GSW days.
 

Entity

Hall of Famer
#15
All we need is 12-14 pts with some defense and 35-40% shooting from 3pt and some rebounding. can he give us that consistently with spurts of 20 pt games
 
#16
Let's not kid ourselves here, Harrispn Barnes would be a huge upgrade to shumpert and jackson
Exactly. Jackson is a solid SF off the bench, especially since his D is improving and hit shot is falling a little more.

As far as Shumpert goes, if we pick up another forward, I'm pretty much over him. Bring him off the bench for leftover SG/SF minutes.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#17
Sure, he's better than Jackson and Shumpert. But he's nothing to get very excited about, especially at at $24 million per year and $25 mill next year. When it comes to his instincts for the game I think he's sub standard, and therefore I have questions about how well he would fit with the Kings going forward. I don't have those questions with Porter. In sum, I think the opportunity costs with Barnes are probably too great to trade for him.
 
#18
Sure, he's better than Jackson and Shumpert. But he's nothing to get very excited about, especially at at $24 million per year and $25 mill next year. When it comes to his instincts for the game I think he's sub standard, and therefore I have questions about how well he would fit with the Kings going forward. I don't have those questions with Porter. In sum, I think the opportunity costs with Barnes are probably too great to trade for him.
I would much prefer Otto over Barnes, agreed. But this Otto saga has gone on for a while now. First we offer him a contract but the Wiz matched it, and now there's trade talk that apparently isn't going much of anywhere. I want to see some progress.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#19
I would much prefer Otto over Barnes, agreed. But this Otto saga has gone on for a while now. First we offer him a contract but the Wiz matched it, and now there's trade talk that apparently isn't going much of anywhere. I want to see some progress.
Patience is key, for fans and for Vlade. Don't settle for stale bread. Even if Porter doesn't get traded, I wouldn't settle for Barnes at that salary.
 
#20
I would much prefer Otto over Barnes, agreed. But this Otto saga has gone on for a while now. First we offer him a contract but the Wiz matched it, and now there's trade talk that apparently isn't going much of anywhere. I want to see some progress.
If I remember correctly, the Kings offered Porter a max contract that he didn't accept. He signed a max deal with Brooklyn(?) which then Washington matched.
 
#21
If I remember correctly, the Kings offered Porter a max contract that he didn't accept. He signed a max deal with Brooklyn(?) which then Washington matched.
That was the rumor at the time. But Vlade shot that down later in the off season and said the Kings never offered the Max to Porter.

Probably was the agent spreading the rumor to up the contract offer from Brooklyn, which Washington eventually matched.
 
#22
Sure, he's better than Jackson and Shumpert. But he's nothing to get very excited about, especially at at $24 million per year and $25 mill next year. When it comes to his instincts for the game I think he's sub standard, and therefore I have questions about how well he would fit with the Kings going forward. I don't have those questions with Porter. In sum, I think the opportunity costs with Barnes are probably too great to trade for him.
Don't really no if there is that much opportunity cost. What do you think they can't do after trading for Barnes? They still have a lot of space.
The Kings have so much cap space I worry they overpay someone else even more on a 4 year contract. At least Barnes plays a position of need and is on a short contract.
 

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#27
The thing about Barnes with the Mavs is that, after signing that huge contract he was expected to be the lead scorer and go to guy. He must've took it upon himself to do that, partially leading to the so-called "ball-stopper" label. With a lesser role I would hope he plays more like he did in his GSW days.

And while he takes bad shots he's never had a usg much above 25 in his most featured of roles. Hardly black hole level. One thing you are seeing when the Kings play other teams is that teams are forcing the Kings to play more 1 on 1. Bogdan has been the go to answer and that's just not his game. I think adding Barnes who can post up and drive out of iso would be another weapon to help the Kings get through those moments when teams take the passing lanes away.
 

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#28
No thanks to Barnes. Mediocre, overpaid. I'd actually rather develop JJ than trade for him, even though I definitely think we need an upgrade at SF.

Doing one doesn't necessarily negate the other. In fact, I think adding someone like Barnes would be a great benefit for JJ. In practice he'd finally have a full sized SF to run up against.
 
#30
If we don't need to give up anything of value, then Barnes would be worth a gamble.

I would only give up ending contracts for Barnes, I wouldn't include JJ for him.

If we can get him for only enders, he would be a serviceable stop gap SF.
I'd rather keep the $25 mil and head into FA. I don't expect a big name, but there's really productive role guys that we can certainly be in play for: Bojan Bogdanovic, Noah Vonleh, Tyus Jones, Al-Faroq Aminu, TJ McConnell, MKG, Trevor Ariza. Give me 2 (maybe 3?) of these guys any day of the week over Barnes.