Kings Roster next season

outside of trading Barnes for a pick and a young player (and at this point are we sure that was even on the table? Boston never really did anything else) what move would you have liked Monte to make?
He allegedly tried to trade Bags to Detroit for a player many of us would have been happy with in the draft. Buddy isn’t moveable yet. The only thing he could have done at the deadline is sit on his extra second rounders and maybe trade Holmes. Hard to trade a guy you want long term even if there is a chance he bolts.
Boston acquired Fournier partly using their TPE at the deadline.
 
sure but that’s a relatively minor deal. Fournier had been hurt a ton and was an expiring. I think Boston figured they weren’t really a contender and decided to sit on future assets.
the issue was more Boston did not want to go into the luxury tax this year and pay the repeater tax next year.
 
outside of trading Barnes for a pick and a young player (and at this point are we sure that was even on the table? Boston never really did anything else) what move would you have liked Monte to make?
He allegedly tried to trade Bags to Detroit for a player many of us would have been happy with in the draft. Buddy isn’t moveable yet. The only thing he could have done at the deadline is sit on his extra second rounders and maybe trade Holmes. Hard to trade a guy you want long term even if there is a chance he bolts.
I didn't say anything about the moves I wanted him to make nor was I talking about the moves he made or didn't, I'm saying he made the safe, non-bold moves so far when he did so assuming that bold moves are on the horizon is somewhat up to debate. They might be but as of now it looks like they think keeping this thing on the tracks is the plan. The bold move IMO would have been sending a message that a holdover coach with 3 losing streaks the level his coach had in one season wasn't acceptable. Not bold there either so far.
 
My issue is not with those players but the orders you do things.

Step 1) Get your star. Done via the draft or free agency

Step 2) Fill around them with role players

we did it in reverse which might work if you are in Brooklyn but we aren’t in Brooklyn. So I’m not going to argue your points on the roll players. But without them we likely finish 4 or 5th in the lottery with a 50% versus 20% chance at a top 4 pick.
Who made these rules? Trying to get a star is always a goal, but never guaranteed in the draft. I could also argue that the Kings may already possess a star in Fox and wouldn't be surprised if Halliburton turns into a star.

I would argue that a GMs job is to improve the talent of the team. The more talent a team has the more They will compete. It is also easier to sign FAs when you have the makings of a good team as opposed to a team hoping and praying that this will be the year they land that huge star in the draft.

Right nowb there is only one move that Monte has made that upset me. That is keeping Walton around. I hope he ends up proving me wrong.
 
Read in Hoopshype the other day that the Kings and Kent Bazemore have mutual interest in reuniting. If correct who is the better FA target for this team Bazemore or Moe Harkless?
 
Read in Hoopshype the other day that the Kings and Kent Bazemore have mutual interest in reuniting. If correct who is the better FA target for this team Bazemore or Moe Harkless?
are you sure that’s not a post from last offseason? I don’t see anything recent, but I could be missing something...
 
Bazemore probably gives you a little more offense Harkless a little more defense. But either one would probably be fine as long as their price was similar
Bazemore actually gave someone Walton could lean on. Them letting him go was stupid in the first place. He and Len were probably the only two positives in the bubble run and they let them both leave. smh.
 
are you sure that’s not a post from last offseason? I don’t see anything recent, but I could be missing something...
are you sure that’s not a post from last offseason? I don’t see anything recent, but I could be missing something...
sorry about that, I just typed in Hoopshype like I usually do and it took me to an old article. I thought it a bit early to be talking FA targets but then thought maybe they both realised it was a good match.
 
Who made these rules? Trying to get a star is always a goal, but never guaranteed in the draft. I could also argue that the Kings may already possess a star in Fox and wouldn't be surprised if Halliburton turns into a star.

I would argue that a GMs job is to improve the talent of the team. The more talent a team has the more They will compete. It is also easier to sign FAs when you have the makings of a good team as opposed to a team hoping and praying that this will be the year they land that huge star in the draft.

Right nowb there is only one move that Monte has made that upset me. That is keeping Walton around. I hope he ends up proving me wrong.
logic‍♀️

if you are going to find a star your odds are much better with a top 5 pick, or residing in a top market with cap space.

I would argue a team trying to win more than a play-in game needs to have a strategic plan to acquire multiple stars.
 
I do not think it is essential to have a war chest of top five picks to win a playoff series. I don't see the point in digging in too deep, because most people here have their minds made up about what is the right logic and what is the wrong logic (no doubt me included). But I like Utah's team, who have two 'star' players they selected with the # 13 and 27 picks. They maximise the value of these players, and their supporting cast, with good coaching and team play.

Yes, you can build a team buy accumulating top picks. Philly did and they are the top East team. And it's nice to see (now). Other playoff teams built their teams via trades, free agent signings, and draft picks from all across the first and second rounds. Point is there is a diverse range of ways to build a winning team. The best ever Kings team was built with a mix of moves but did not include their own top draft pick.

I don't know what the Kings team will be like at the start of next season. Several of our guys were mentioned at the trade deadline. Our front office also accumulated players I knew nothing about throughout the season. We will probably have another draft pick, even though some mid level at best reporter has speculated there may be a trade. Luke remaining aside, I am enjoying watching how this front office operates and am looking forward to seeing what moves they make.
 
logic‍♀️

if you are going to find a star your odds are much better with a top 5 pick, or residing in a top market with cap space.

I would argue a team trying to win more than a play-in game needs to have a strategic plan to acquire multiple stars.
There is more to logic than simply playing the odds. Teams that constantly lose breed players that get used to losing (more so for teams that don't even try to win.) When that team finally gets lucky enough to get a star player, that player generally tries to bolt as soon as possible to get away from the losing mentality. It may work occasionally, but there is a reason teams tend to stay losers for a long period of time.
 
There is more to logic than simply playing the odds. Teams that constantly lose breed players that get used to losing (more so for teams that don't even try to win.) When that team finally gets lucky enough to get a star player, that player generally tries to bolt as soon as possible to get away from the losing mentality. It may work occasionally, but there is a reason teams tend to stay losers for a long period of time.
yes because they have poor owners, bad luck or both. You don’t see Memphis staying bad for long. Lots of teams have been significantly worse then significantly better than the Kings in their time in and out of the lottery. I don’t expect Memphis or OKC or Houston to stay bad long.
 
yes because they have poor owners, bad luck or both. You don’t see Memphis staying bad for long. Lots of teams have been significantly worse then significantly better than the Kings in their time in and out of the lottery. I don’t expect Memphis or OKC or Houston to stay bad long.
I agree. And their future success will likely have nothing to do with tanking.
 
I agree. And their future success will likely have nothing to do with tanking.
Having high draft picks(statistically A LOT better chance to draft a star compared to 6-12 range), multiple additional draft assets (more bites of the apple+trade assets when the team is ready to compete), good salary cap situation and having given as much playing time as needed to develope young guys will certainly have very much to do with future succes
 
There are legitimate rebuilds that look like tanking. Memphis had an old and expensive team that wasn’t going anywhere and they tore it down. Orlando made a similar call this season. Some teams shut young players down that are succeeding because they want to lose (I’m looking at you OKC). It’s hard to draw the line.
 
I agree. And their future success will likely have nothing to do with tanking.
And to piggyback what is the definition of success. Like the last 10 years or so, how many champions had a top 5 pick that was drafted by them. You might count the Spurs but Duncan was getting older and it wasn’t the biggest threat of their big 3. Cavs pretty much blew all their top picks and didn’t win until lebron came back as a free agent.
 
Memphis absolutely tanked the years they got Ja Morant and Jaren Jackson. Tanking will have everything to do with the future success.
I've toyed with starting a separate thread about this because it's an interesting comparison with the Kings. Regardless of how they got there... both teams drafted at 5 and 2 in successive years. The difference to me is not that Memphis tanked and the Kings didn't, but that that Memphis got better two-way players in the young veterans they received in trade for their star players (Jonas in the Gasol trade vs. Buddy in the Boogie trade) and free agency (the impact stats love Kyle Anderson... although you could argue Holmes maybe was the Kings' equivalent). I'm not going to argue Fox vs. Morant, but I think it's clear that the Grizzlies got a much better player with their 2 pick than the Kings did.

Memphis also has done a great job of finding impact guys in the later rounds (Brooks at 45 in 2017, Tillman this year--compare that to the Kings whiffing on Richardson, Skal, Giles...) But it's not like they're completely built around 21-22 year olds. They've been working with similar picks and resources the Kings have, they've just been getting better players.
 
Better players, better fits, more physicality, and better player leadership. Now, I think Memphis is going to have some growing pains because I’m not seeing a superstar on their roster. But they’ve turned themselves into a team where a great player may want to go. And they have an identity. The Kings have no identity (besides KANGZ).
 
And to piggyback what is the definition of success. Like the last 10 years or so, how many champions had a top 5 pick that was drafted by them. You might count the Spurs but Duncan was getting older and it wasn’t the biggest threat of their big 3. Cavs pretty much blew all their top picks and didn’t win until lebron came back as a free agent.
Yeah even Golden State's core was a seventh pick, an 11th pick, and a 35th pick.
 
I've toyed with starting a separate thread about this because it's an interesting comparison with the Kings. Regardless of how they got there... both teams drafted at 5 and 2 in successive years. The difference to me is not that Memphis tanked and the Kings didn't, but that that Memphis got better two-way players in the young veterans they received in trade for their star players (Jonas in the Gasol trade vs. Buddy in the Boogie trade) and free agency (the impact stats love Kyle Anderson... although you could argue Holmes maybe was the Kings' equivalent). I'm not going to argue Fox vs. Morant, but I think it's clear that the Grizzlies got a much better player with their 2 pick than the Kings did.

Memphis also has done a great job of finding impact guys in the later rounds (Brooks at 45 in 2017, Tillman this year--compare that to the Kings whiffing on Richardson, Skal, Giles...) But it's not like they're completely built around 21-22 year olds. They've been working with similar picks and resources the Kings have, they've just been getting better players.
Memphis has done a really good job of finding value where others haven't. I feel that our front office did that to some extent this past season. Early days still.
 
And to piggyback what is the definition of success. Like the last 10 years or so, how many champions had a top 5 pick that was drafted by them. You might count the Spurs but Duncan was getting older and it wasn’t the biggest threat of their big 3. Cavs pretty much blew all their top picks and didn’t win until lebron came back as a free agent.
Very true but the bar doesn't need to be at 5 really. The fact remains more than a few teams have flipped higher value picks and players in trades for the pieces they eventually went on to win with. It's all a part of the process. I would say probably the caveat has more to do with the idea that teams think they can purely draft their way to success. Yeah, that's not usually the case. This is why the Kings completely tanking the value of the first top 3 pick they've had in forever is so damaging. Whether Bagely is destined for greatness isn't the issue, the issue if the Kings have gone out of their way to ruin the value they could have received out of that pick and this is unfortunately a repetitive cycle that is continuing on regardless of owner or GM. They are trying to look at long term pieces in a short term window.
 
And to piggyback what is the definition of success. Like the last 10 years or so, how many champions had a top 5 pick that was drafted by them. You might count the Spurs but Duncan was getting older and it wasn’t the biggest threat of their big 3. Cavs pretty much blew all their top picks and didn’t win until lebron came back as a free agent.
Of cource you count the spurs if thats your criteria. Drafting a top 10 all time talent attracts good players and staff. Big markets will always have the edge in this type of discussions but one could turn your question in couple of different ways: how many teams have won championship without at least two all star/all nba level players? Or how many small market teams have won championships by refusing to tank for top talent and getting that some other way? Or at the very least: as we all know how much more probable it is to draft a star level player top 3 compared to 7-9, how should that affect the way of operating for a team thats capped out but still not nearly good enough for the playoffs?

Championship is extremely hard to win. To me a better indicator is being acutally a competitive playoff team. Certain markets will always have the edge like LA and such and that will make it even harder for a small market team. Imo its hard to argue against the fact that in order to be a truly competitive team you need at least two all star level players with one of them being an all NBA level player. And before anyone tells me we already might have them: we dont. We are capped out, we have very expensive role players and our 8 man rotation is pretty good if we had those two stars. We are not very close to being a good playoff team so atm we clearly dont have two stars of our own

If thats recognized as a fact, the question is: where do you get those type of players? Imo for a small market team the answer is via the draft. As long as you dont have a franchise changing player drafted, you probably wont get any star via free agency. That means you need to draft that guy. We have proven data that in order to draft that guy its extremely important to draft top 3, preferably even higher.


The other route for a small market team is to do what we have done over and over and over again. Winning 10 more games than the team picking top 3 hasnt provided us a winning culture or winning players thus far. Its about talent most of all and then its about front office to put up a good staff to bring the best out of that talent. Relying on perfect draft luck at 9 is not a smart strategy based on the data.
 
Or how many small market teams have won championships by refusing to tank for top talent and getting that some other way?
How many small market teams have won a championship?

The Spurs? Only after David Robinson got injured and they landed the Big Fundamental. Both Parker and Ginobli were late picks.

Who else?

Utah has a real shot this year but they didn’t get their players in the top 5.

OkC, that everyone fawns over has zero championships.

Toronto isn’t small market but are treated as such and their chip was a result of a trade.

homegrown championships are pretty rare in general.

as you said, it’s incredibly hard to win a chip in the NBA and nearly impossible for small market teams.
 
How many small market teams have won a championship?

The Spurs? Only after David Robinson got injured and they landed the Big Fundamental. Both Parker and Ginobli were late picks.

Who else?

Utah has a real shot this year but they didn’t get their players in the top 5.

OkC, that everyone fawns over has zero championships.

Toronto isn’t small market but are treated as such and their chip was a result of a trade.

homegrown championships are pretty rare in general.

as you said, it’s incredibly hard to win a chip in the NBA and nearly impossible for small market teams.
My exact point is that championships are extremely hard so first of all the initiall question i quoted was bad and as I said the better indicator is being a seriously competitive team rather than winning a championship.

The most important point of cource is that as we've done the same thing and the same strategy for so many years without getting anything from it, maybe its time to try something else especially since we know factually the importance of star level players and how much more porbable it is to get them top 3 vs 9-12 ect