Kings need to move on from Barnes.

[NewArena]

Don't believe this means anything, but I'm fairly certain our record has been better without Fox this season. Dispels that notion that injuries mattered pretty quick.

It really doesn’t, not when you consider the fact that Fox returned along with Bagley, and completely threw off chemistry, having to work their way back in only to get injured AGAIN and constantly lose important rotation players.

Holmes has been out for most of our games without Fox. If you’re going talk record, you need to tell the full truth. You dispelled nothing

 

[NewArena]

You must have missed the DMC years where the majority were saying he by himself won games and we were 1-16 (something like that without him) but I guess that now does not apply to Fox/Bagley it only applies when it's in favour of the Kings player in question.

DMC had us in games we would have lost by 30 otherwise

What’re you even talking about? If Fox actually had a chance to get to know some of these new players on the court instead of missing 20 games, who knows what the chemistry would’ve been like

He’s just now showing us how much of a star he can be

 

[ESP47]

Injuries have definitely been a huge issue, guys. Not sure where the sarcasm is coming from

Fox missed damn near 20 games. If we win even 7 or 8 of those, this is a totally different season

They went 9-11 in games that Corey Joseph started.

The season would more than likely look even worse if Fox hadn't gotten hurt and that's not because Fox is an inferior player. It's because Walton is an inferior coach.

 

[KingsSelecao]

Not one team will trade for Barnes. That contract is a joke. 20 mil. Kings are stuck with that albratross for at least another 2 years. Barnes is a 10-12 million dollar player.

 

[King Baller]

You must have missed the DMC years where the majority were saying he by himself won games and we were 1-16 (something like that without him) but I guess that now does not apply to Fox/Bagley it only applies when it's in favour of the Kings player in question.

Yes I guess I missed all that.

 

[King Baller]

Not one team will trade for Barnes. That contract is a joke. 20 mil. Kings are stuck with that albratross for at least another 2 years. Barnes is a 10-12 million dollar player.

When I watch Barnes I see a good defensive player who plays the offense the way the Coach says. He has a knack for getting to the hoop and scoring. Barnes would have signed for more than 10-12 M for some team. If that had been the Kings offer he would be playing somewhere else.

But I get it, new coach, new players, injuries, team has not gelled and the losses have piled up. So us Fans start to critique the Owner, GM, Front Office, Coach, Players, Trainers..............................it has to be somebody's fault!

 

[pshn80]

BARNES fits and plays well, is a value able to the team. Don’t trade him. Besides that I like him.

 

[jcassio]

When I watch Barnes I see a good defensive player who plays the offense the way the Coach says. He has a knack for getting to the hoop and scoring. Barnes would have signed for more than 10-12 M for some team. If that had been the Kings offer he would be playing somewhere else.

But I get it, new coach, new players, injuries, team has not gelled and the losses have piled up. So us Fans start to critique the Owner, GM, Front Office, Coach, Players, Trainers..............................it has to be somebody's fault!

I hear you. The blame game and so many Kingsfans wanting to "throw out the baby with the bath water" is making it hard to enjoy this forum lately. Pitchforks are being waved!!
The truth is, I'm not a big fan of Barnes. He does some things well. Not really exceptional at anything, except perhaps being a professional. I accept that we are overpaying him this year. Being a 3/4 has value, but Barnes is not a very good rebounder. But he's generally solid. Except perhaps when he's worn down.

 

[Showtime]

The bottom line is nobody would have a problem with Barnes if he was making 13 mil instead of 23 mil. 23 mil is "move the needle" numbers, and Barnes doesn't move the needle and doesn't elevate a team.

 

[hrdboild]

The bottom line is nobody would have a problem with Barnes if he was making 13 mil instead of 23 mil. 23 mil is "move the needle" numbers, and Barnes doesn't move the needle and doesn't elevate a team.

Right, and he also wasn't worth what Dallas was paying him either but that's not his fault. Some of that is opportunity cost. There are 30 teams and not all of them have a competant starting SF. That means somebody is going to overpay to make sure they aren't left with nothing. A steady veteran who gets along with everybody and goes about their work in a professional manner is also valuable regardless of what they do or do not contribute on the court, especially with a young team.

Aside from that, I'm really tired of seeing fans turn on players just because they don't like their contract. Even the guy sitting at the end of the bench is making more money in a year than I'll make in 10, so what? Trading Barnes might assuage some people's sense of justice but it's unlikely to make us a better basketball team. Think about how we've spent our cap space in the past and then tell me we're going to find someone better than Barnes who wants to play in Sacramento for less money. It's a pipe dream and this topic is just pointless finger pointing.

 

[Showtime]

Right, and he also wasn't worth what Dallas was paying him either but that's not his fault. Some of that is opportunity cost. There are 30 teams and not all of them have a competant starting SF. That means somebody is going to overpay to make sure they aren't left with nothing. A steady veteran who gets along with everybody and goes about their work in a professional manner is also valuable regardless of what they do or do not contribute on the court, especially with a young team.

Aside from that, I'm really tired of seeing fans turn on players just because they don't like their contract. Even the guy sitting at the end of the bench is making more money in a year than I'll make in 10, so what? Trading Barnes might assuage some people's sense of justice but it's unlikely to make us a better basketball team. Think about how we've spent our cap space in the past and then tell me we're going to find someone better than Barnes who wants to play in Sacramento for less money. It's a pipe dream and this topic is just pointless finger pointing.

It isn't finger pointing, but discussing a way to get the team in a better position than it is. The position is bad with the deal Barnes was given, so the thread is about how to get out of that position. Again, this isn't about Barnes but about his contract and impact on the team.

 

[hrdboild]

It isn't finger pointing, but discussing a way to get the team in a better position than it is. The position is bad with the deal Barnes was given, so the thread is about how to get out of that position. Again, this isn't about Barnes but about his contract and impact on the team.

Can you answer this then?

"Think about how we've spent our cap space in the past and then tell me we're going to find someone better than Barnes who wants to play in Sacramento for less money."

Trading Barnes would be a salary dump. So who are we going to replace him with that makes us better than we are right now?

 

[VF21]

I hear you. The blame game and so many Kingsfans wanting to "throw out the baby with the bath water" is making it hard to enjoy this forum lately. Pitchforks are being waved!!
The truth is, I'm not a big fan of Barnes. He does some things well. Not really exceptional at anything, except perhaps being a professional. I accept that we are overpaying him this year. Being a 3/4 has value, but Barnes is not a very good rebounder. But he's generally solid. Except perhaps when he's worn down.

Just a reminder: The IGNORE feature can make a big difference.

 

[VF21]

Right, and he also wasn't worth what Dallas was paying him either but that's not his fault. Some of that is opportunity cost. There are 30 teams and not all of them have a competant starting SF. That means somebody is going to overpay to make sure they aren't left with nothing. A steady veteran who gets along with everybody and goes about their work in a professional manner is also valuable regardless of what they do or do not contribute on the court, especially with a young team.

Aside from that, I'm really tired of seeing fans turn on players just because they don't like their contract. Even the guy sitting at the end of the bench is making more money in a year than I'll make in 10, so what? Trading Barnes might assuage some people's sense of justice but it's unlikely to make us a better basketball team. Think about how we've spent our cap space in the past and then tell me we're going to find someone better than Barnes who wants to play in Sacramento for less money. It's a pipe dream and this topic is just pointless finger pointing.

I could not possibly agree more. Some of these posts make it sound like the salary is coming out of their pockets.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Just a reminder: The IGNORE feature can make a big difference.

Yeah, like in half of my posts it makes me look like Grandpa Simpson screaming at the sky.

 

[Gguod]

Aside from that, I'm really tired of seeing fans turn on players just because they don't like their contract. Even the guy sitting at the end of the bench is making more money in a year than I'll make in 10, so what? Trading Barnes might assuage some people's sense of justice but it's unlikely to make us a better basketball team. Think about how we've spent our cap space in the past and then tell me we're going to find someone better than Barnes who wants to play in Sacramento for less money. It's a pipe dream and this topic is just pointless finger pointing.

I could not possibly agree more. Some of these posts make it sound like the salary is coming out of their pockets.

In a salary cap sport the reality is that it really matters how big portion of the cap the player is making. The same player can be a big asset if he is on a 4/36mil contract and also a negative value asset if hes on a 4/90mil contract.

Can you answer this then?

"Think about how we've spent our cap space in the past and then tell me we're going to find someone better than Barnes who wants to play in Sacramento for less money."

Trading Barnes would be a salary dump. So who are we going to replace him with that makes us better than we are right now?

Cap can be used to acquire assets (picks, young players). Theres always an opportunity cost unless your a team thats already clearly over the cap and competing. Spending a big portion of the cap to a player that doesnt move the needle and cannot be traded isnt a smart move. I think thats the problem for these fans, you can do better things with the cap than paying +20mil/year to Barnes, +20mil/year to Buddy, 13mil/year to Dedmond ect.

 

[VF21]

In a salary cap sport the reality is that it really matters how big portion of the cap the player is making. The same player can be a big asset if he is on a 4/36mil contract and also a negative value asset if hes on a 4/90mil contract.



Cap can be used to acquire assets (picks, young players). Theres always an opportunity cost unless your a team thats already clearly over the cap and competing. Spending a big portion of the cap to a player that doesnt move the needle and cannot be traded isnt a smart move. I think thats the problem for these fans, you can do better things with the cap than paying +20mil/year to Barnes, +20mil/year to Buddy, 13mil/year to Dedmond ect.

I can pretty much guarantee the vast majority of fans who walk into G1C aren't thinking salary cap as they're watching the game.

There is a whole group of fans, I agree, who are totally consumed by salary caps, contracts, etc. I honestly think there's room for each but not necessarily to the extent we sometimes see around here.

BTW? It's this kind of rationale that led to the creation of the Personnel Moves forum so that those members who were more interested in the GM operation-type stuff and all those random trade proposals would have a place to have those discussions.

 

[hrdboild]

In a salary cap sport the reality is that it really matters how big portion of the cap the player is making. The same player can be a big asset if he is on a 4/36mil contract and also a negative value asset if hes on a 4/90mil contract.



Cap can be used to acquire assets (picks, young players). Theres always an opportunity cost unless your a team thats already clearly over the cap and competing. Spending a big portion of the cap to a player that doesnt move the needle and cannot be traded isnt a smart move. I think thats the problem for these fans, you can do better things with the cap than paying +20mil/year to Barnes, +20mil/year to Buddy, 13mil/year to Dedmond ect.

Oh yeah, picks young players and cap space. This is where I clock out. I was with you 12 years ago. The same old song has just gotten tired. I have way more faith in Harrison Barnes being a serviceable (albeit overpaid) player than our front office converting picks, cap space, and young players into something better.

 

[Gguod]

Oh yeah, picks young players and cap space. This is where I clock out. I was with you 12 years ago. The same old song has just gotten tired. I have way more faith in Harrison Barnes being a serviceable (albeit overpaid) player than our front office converting picks, cap space, and young players into something better.

If thats the case, there is something wrong with the front office and it needs to be fixed ASAP. The answer isnt signing mediocre vets to overpaid contracts, the answer is getting a competent gm and front office

E: to be clear I dont have anything against Barnes. I always think that players should get all the money they can. The problem to me is the front office that hands out these overpaid contracts to vets while we arent in a position to be in contention

 

[VF21]

If thats the case, there is something wrong with the front office and it needs to be fixed ASAP. The answer isnt signing mediocre vets to overpaid contracts, the answer is getting a competent gm and front office

The ultimate Catch-22 in the minds of some...or this:

 

[Jkbiker]

Well I feel we did a good job getting a long term solution at SF for our core, before the Barnes trade SF was our glaring hole in our starting rotation
JJ and shump (Really a SG) was covering the position, Trading JJ for HB was the best long term option the Kings were going to get. Most fans thought we robbed the Mavs for a starter for nothing! Yes 21M per year is an overpay, but an extra 4-5m for a quality starter is what Kings needed to pay. Would I switch back to JJ and his contract? NO, even if we could trade HB and his contract, who could we get in FA to replace him? I have not seen any suggestions from the fans in this thread as to who we could get. Would I be happier to pay 15M for HB instead of 21m, YES , But its a done deal now. Time to make it work!

signing Dedmon, Ariza, Cojo to 10-15m for backup positions ? If I am complaining about over paid contracts, that's where Im going

 

[Joshoua]

Not one team will trade for Barnes. That contract is a joke. 20 mil. Kings are stuck with that albratross for at least another 2 years. Barnes is a 10-12 million dollar player.

im so mad I take a nap wake up 2 hours later and see Harrison Barnes trending on Twitter. I’m like yes I got traded but no it’s people clowning Wiggins with Wiggins to Barnes comparisons

 

[hrdboild]

If thats the case, there is something wrong with the front office and it needs to be fixed ASAP. The answer isnt signing mediocre vets to overpaid contracts, the answer is getting a competent gm and front office

E: to be clear I dont have anything against Barnes. I always think that players should get all the money they can. The problem to me is the front office that hands out these overpaid contracts to vets while we arent in a position to be in contention

Hey, I respect your spunk. Objectively speaking, yes you want to maximize your assets and avoid overpaying veteran players. That's Moneyball 101. As an Oakland A's fan I've seen those principles at work for years so I'm all for smart asset management. But we've been through all that before. Then we we had owners who tried to sell the team to 3 different cities (unsuccessfully) then we had a GM who was convinced the answer to everything was "play faster" so we got a Hall of Fame coach who's the godfather of "play faster" and he managed to pee off the entire team and half the coaching staff in less than a year. Then we sold literally everything for draft picks and rebuilt from the ground up. Then we started trading those players away before their rookie contracts ended. Then we fired the coach who led us to our best record since 2006. Now we're back at the overpaid veteran stage apparently?

I think our circumstances call for special consideration. We're so far off the map at this point that I don't think any of the regular rules apply anymore. I'm not very happy with Vlade's decision-making either but firing Vlade means also firing Luke Walton and it means hiring some new GM who is going to dismantle this version of the Kings to build their own version. It means another coaching search. It means trading away everything Vlade has built or waste the rest of their primes on a last place team trying to establish itself once again. We're already on our third GM and ninth (!) head coach since the last time this team even made the playoffs. To put that in perspective, more teams make the playoffs in the NBA every year than don't make it. It's damn hard to run off 14 straight seasons without nabbing even an 8th seed.

I'll echo VF21 on this: If you or anyone else has a plan for how to get us from where we are to where we want to be, there's the Personnel Moves forum. Come up with some specific names, use basketball-reference to check their contracts and match our guys to someone else's guys with a realistic trade where both teams get something of value. Tell me how you're going to transform these overpaid veterans that we apparently don't want into trade chips that other teams will pay something valuable for. In my younger years when I still thought that I knew everything (up until a couple years ago, basically ) I posted dozens of trade scenarios and even some full rebuild scenarios. It can be a fun way to blow off some steam. I've lost track of how many times I've rebuilt this team into a champion in my head. At this point that no longer does it for me, but if it still does it for you that's cool. I would actually be happy with a team of overpaid veterans who look like they still give a toss scrapping out an 8th seed at this point.

I get that this is just a fan forum and this is just supposed to be a place for us to pile in and vent on how bad Player X is and how they need to get gone so the infinitely better Player Y can take their place, I'm just lobbing in my dissenting opinion. We're 14 years deep into a rebuild with no end in sight. No single player is to blame, regardless of how much money they've stolen from our poor ownership group. I made a long post in the Carmichael Dave topic which sortof got away from me and was so long that most people probably just skipped it but let me just post the last paragraph:

But I also think there's significant evidence that we, the fans, need to take a chill pill and stop leaning on the front office to make these "just do something already" types of moves. Vlade is giving us what we want, for the most part. He's made one unforgivable sin as a GM, and other GMs have been fired for less, but if my chief criticism of Vlade is that he needs to work harder on building bridges, establishing loyalty, and allowing players the leeway to learn from their mistakes and get better because of them than maybe the same is true for us. Stop worrying about who is to blame and just worry about establishing a culture that elevates people.

 

[jellyfish]

The Mavericks replaced Barnes with Dorian Finney Smith (most Kings fans don't even know) and JJ and are better for it and combined they make 1/2 of what Barnes makes. Even if Barnes was making 12mil per season the fact he has no impact on most games I would still want him gone. The Grizzlies found out the hard way with Jeff Green (cost them a championship/chance at one) who Barnes reminds me off a lot. Holmes/Bjelica make under 12mil combined and there impact is on a different planet to Barnes.

 

[King Baller]

The Mavericks replaced Barnes with Dorian Finney Smith (most Kings fans don't even know) and JJ and are better for it and combined they make 1/2 of what Barnes makes. Even if Barnes was making 12mil per season the fact he has no impact on most games I would still want him gone. The Grizzlies found out the hard way with Jeff Green (cost them a championship/chance at one) who Barnes reminds me off a lot. Holmes/Bjelica make under 12mil combined and there impact is on a different planet to Barnes.

You are sure mad about how much Barnes contract is The Mavs are good for several reasons. The guys playing SF for them are a very small part of it. Barnes contract is signed by both parties and is unlikely to change.

 

[jellyfish]

You are sure mad about how much Barnes contract is The Mavs are good for several reasons. The guys playing SF for them are a very small part of it. Barnes contract is signed by both parties and is unlikely to change.

Not at all DFS is one of the best defenders in the NBA and carried the Mavs the last two games Luka was out (JJ is still trash). The guy playing SF for us has played a very small part in our sub 20 win season so far. Also pointing out the obvious does not imply I'm mad in regard to Barnes I'm more annoyed he's on the team than what he's making.

 

[jcassio]

Hey, I respect your spunk. Objectively speaking, yes you want to maximize your assets and avoid overpaying veteran players. That's Moneyball 101. As an Oakland A's fan I've seen those principles at work for years so I'm all for smart asset management. But we've been through all that before. Then we we had owners who tried to sell the team to 3 different cities (unsuccessfully) then we had a GM who was convinced the answer to everything was "play faster" so we got a Hall of Fame coach who's the godfather of "play faster" and he managed to pee off the entire team and half the coaching staff in less than a year. Then we sold literally everything for draft picks and rebuilt from the ground up. Then we started trading those players away before their rookie contracts ended. Then we fired the coach who led us to our best record since 2006. Now we're back at the overpaid veteran stage apparently?

I think our circumstances call for special consideration. We're so far off the map at this point that I don't think any of the regular rules apply anymore. I'm not very happy with Vlade's decision-making either but firing Vlade means also firing Luke Walton and it means hiring some new GM who is going to dismantle this version of the Kings to build their own version. It means another coaching search. It means trading away everything Vlade has built or waste the rest of their primes on a last place team trying to establish itself once again. We're already on our third GM and ninth (!) head coach since the last time this team even made the playoffs. To put that in perspective, more teams make the playoffs in the NBA every year than don't make it. It's damn hard to run off 14 straight seasons without nabbing even an 8th seed.

I'll echo VF21 on this: If you or anyone else has a plan for how to get us from where we are to where we want to be, there's the Personnel Moves forum. Come up with some specific names, use basketball-reference to check their contracts and match our guys to someone else's guys with a realistic trade where both teams get something of value. Tell me how you're going to transform these overpaid veterans that we apparently don't want into trade chips that other teams will pay something valuable for. In my younger years when I still thought that I knew everything (up until a couple years ago, basically ) I posted dozens of trade scenarios and even some full rebuild scenarios. It can be a fun way to blow off some steam. I've lost track of how many times I've rebuilt this team into a champion in my head. At this point that no longer does it for me, but if it still does it for you that's cool. I would actually be happy with a team of overpaid veterans who look like they still give a toss scrapping out an 8th seed at this point.

I get that this is just a fan forum and this is just supposed to be a place for us to pile in and vent on how bad Player X is and how they need to get gone so the infinitely better Player Y can take their place, I'm just lobbing in my dissenting opinion. We're 14 years deep into a rebuild with no end in sight. No single player is to blame, regardless of how much money they've stolen from our poor ownership group. I made a long post in the Carmichael Dave topic which sortof got away from me and was so long that most people probably just skipped it but let me just post the last paragraph:

Beautiful post.

 

[ESP47]

Stop worrying about who is to blame and just worry about establishing a culture that elevates people.

I don't know hrdboild, this sounds great in theory but it's really just equivalent to singing Kumbaya around a camp fire.

I think everyone knows that discussing anything on this site is futile. We all just do it for entertainment. You can't change natural human emotions with patience and culture building. No one is happy losing with no glimmer of hope in sight. That goes for players and fans. Patience, bridge building and attempts at reinforcing positive culture isn't going to change the natural human behavior of being angry about losing. It's tolerable when you can see wins on the horizon but that's about the only time it's tolerable.

 

[Showtime]

Can you answer this then?

"Think about how we've spent our cap space in the past and then tell me we're going to find someone better than Barnes who wants to play in Sacramento for less money."

Trading Barnes would be a salary dump. So who are we going to replace him with that makes us better than we are right now?

That's not the question that should be answered though. That kind of thinking is why the team is bad. The question that should be answered is: "How does the team improve its position overall and maintain an advantage for future growth". Example: denying the option on Giles was a dumb move, regardless of their intent on retaining him, because it is a less advantageous position with fewer options the team has to work with. With Barnes, the question isn't "Who do we plug into the SF position that's better than who we have", because this team is a lottery team and Barnes isn't helping that effort. It doesn't matter at this point. What matters is having options, like picks, trades flexibility, etc. This team doesn't have flexibility because of bad deals, and doesn't have many picks for the same reason. They've limited their flexibility to obtain/retain talent, and it is the wrong talent that isn't helping.

 

[Jkbiker]

So if we really want to move on , and Barnes contract is a net neg value, Suns want to move Oubre
Barnes & Bogie (the sweetner) for Oubre and Johnson(Ender)