Kings Roster next season

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
Dont know if I've asked you or not, but would you have been on board with some of the rebuilding packages that teams got at the deadline for similar player comps? The Aaron Gordon trade for Barnes (long-term contract,young player, future 1st round pick), The Dipo package for Buddy (essentially a cap dump).

I know some want to claim "sources" that we passed on Barnes for Nesmith and a 1st, but I find it hard to believe they didn't offer that for Aaron Gordon, someone they were actively reported to pursuing harder than Barnes. And that package is better than the one Denver gave them. So if they didn't offer that for Gordon, seems dubious they offered it for Barnes.
 
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.
true but Memphis got those picks because they had better odds. The Kings got lucky but drafted poorly. And yes Memphis has maximized their second round picks. Both of those are a function of analytical front office staffs and a competent owner.
 
true but Memphis got those picks because they had better odds. The Kings got lucky but drafted poorly. And yes Memphis has maximized their second round picks. Both of those are a function of analytical front office staffs and a competent owner.
It's not really talked about enough, but Frank Mason functionally being the only 2nd round investment he made in 5 years was a one of the main reasons for Vlade's downfall. A big reason why teams spike in wins is hitting on 2nd rounders with that limited invested asset. Bigger ones (Jokic, Draymond, Brogdon) to smaller rotation guys (Graham, Brunson, Melton, Bryant, Brooks, Morris, Trent (we had him...))
 
It's not really talked about enough, but Frank Mason functionally being the only 2nd round investment he made in 5 years was a one of the main reasons for Vlade's downfall. A big reason why teams spike in wins is hitting on 2nd rounders with that limited invested asset. Bigger ones (Jokic, Draymond, Brogdon) to smaller rotation guys (Graham, Brunson, Melton, Bryant, Brooks, Morris, Trent (we had him...))
yep it’s why I wasn’t happy giving up our second round draft capital for Delon. You can get guys like him in free agency.
 
pointing out outliers does not change the facts that statistically your odds of drafting an all-star caliber player is much higher in the top 5 than in the lower picks. As a analytics based front office Memphis understood this fact and went with the odds.
Yes you are more likely to get an all star with a top five pick. But the point is intentionally losing to accumulate several top picks that may become all stars is not the only way to build a winning playoff team, it is just the only way you, and others, seem to be willing to acknowledge. Of the teams in the playoffs now, Utah, LA, Denver, Milwaukie, and Brooklyn have no players that they themselves drafted in the top five. Atlanta, Philly, and Phoenix do. For Atlanta, they found success with one top five pick, Trae, once they surrounded him with good players and made a coaching change. Philly is the poster child for process fans, but they had several misses, are not yet a finished product, and would be hard to emulate with the changes to lottery odds. Phoenix has Aayton, but their best players were drafted with the 13th pick (Booker), 10th pick (Bridges), and acquired via trade (Paul). Golden State would be an outlier if all other successful teams followed one set recipe. But they don't. There are several approaches to team building. Successful teams that compete for championships are essentially a collection of team building outliers. It is fine to have a preferred strategy or direction that you believe the Kings should follow. But anyone who denies that there are alternatives to what they believe is best is kidding themselves.
 
yep it’s why I wasn’t happy giving up our second round draft capital for Delon. You can get guys like him in free agency.
Eh disagree. Terrance Davis (especially if you retain him for like 3/15) and Delon Wright on a 1/6.5 (after factoring in CoJo dead money) is pretty great value for bad 2nd round picks. Both guys showed they're rotation contributors (in Delon's case, a low-end starting quality guard) for an asset you had a surplus of and needed to trade at some point anyway. Those trades are what Im talking about in terms of getting 2nd round value; actually acquiring NBA contributing talent.
 
Yes you are more likely to get an all star with a top five pick. But the point is intentionally losing to accumulate several top picks that may become all stars is not the only way to build a winning playoff team, it is just the only way you, and others, seem to be willing to acknowledge. Of the teams in the playoffs now, Utah, LA, Denver, Milwaukie, and Brooklyn have no players that they themselves drafted in the top five. Atlanta, Philly, and Phoenix do. For Atlanta, they found success with one top five pick, Trae, once they surrounded him with good players and made a coaching change. Philly is the poster child for process fans, but they had several misses, are not yet a finished product, and would be hard to emulate with the changes to lottery odds. Phoenix has Aayton, but their best players were drafted with the 13th pick (Booker), 10th pick (Bridges), and acquired via trade (Paul). Golden State would be an outlier if all other successful teams followed one set recipe. But they don't. There are several approaches to team building. Successful teams that compete for championships are essentially a collection of team building outliers. It is fine to have a preferred strategy or direction that you believe the Kings should follow. But anyone who denies that there are alternatives to what they believe is best is kidding themselves.
Hunter is also a top 5 pick and a key player in Atlanta’s future

Utah and Milwaukee both have excellent draft organizations which certainly can work in your favor. We shall see if Monte is as skilled to pick a Rudy Gobert at the end of the first round or a Jokic in the second. But to do that he will have to accumulate draft capital and so far he has only lost draft capital.

LA and Brooklyn are not comparable.
 
Eh disagree. Terrance Davis (especially if you retain him for like 3/15) and Delon Wright on a 1/6.5 (after factoring in CoJo dead money) is pretty great value for bad 2nd round picks. Both guys showed they're rotation contributors (in Delon's case, a low-end starting quality guard) for an asset you had a surplus of and needed to trade at some point anyway. Those trades are what Im talking about in terms of getting 2nd round value; actually acquiring NBA contributing talent.
Davis I was more in favor of then Delon if you can resign him. Delon was a guy an organization like the Kings should use free agent money on not draft capital.

You can point to Denver and Memphis for adding quality second round players while also poo-pooing away giving up those picks.
 
Dont know if I've asked you or not, but would you have been on board with some of the rebuilding packages that teams got at the deadline for similar player comps? The Aaron Gordon trade for Barnes (long-term contract,young player, future 1st round pick), The Dipo package for Buddy (essentially a cap dump).

I know some want to claim "sources" that we passed on Barnes for Nesmith and a 1st, but I find it hard to believe they didn't offer that for Aaron Gordon, someone they were actively reported to pursuing harder than Barnes. And that package is better than the one Denver gave them. So if they didn't offer that for Gordon, seems dubious they offered it for Barnes.
keep in mind Barnes has an extra year of control. Gordon will be a UFA after next year.
 
keep in mind Barnes has an extra year of control. Gordon will be a UFA after next year.
Right. I think that's a detriment? I've thought that teams value more flexibility in the "win-now" type trades and would rather have the 1 1/2 year or 1/2 guys rather than big long-term contracts.. They moreso go long-term in FA, rather than trades. Totally anecdotal though, nothing to really back that up other than intuition.
 
Right. I think that's a detriment? I've thought that teams value more flexibility in the "win-now" type trades and would rather have the 1 1/2 year or 1/2 guys rather than big long-term contracts.. They moreso go long-term in FA, rather than trades. Totally anecdotal though, nothing to really back that up other than intuition.
It depends if you think you are a free agent destination type of place. Historically Boston has not been that type of destination and with Tatum eligible for the Max that extra year matters. That gave them 2.5 years of control and at a declining salary.
 
It depends if you think you are a free agent destination type of place. Historically Boston has not been that type of destination and with Tatum eligible for the Max that extra year matters. That gave them 2.5 years of control and at a declining salary.
No troll here, even though I have in the past. Do you know have any idea if they offered that package for Gordon? That's my hold-up; it seems so unlikely they offer 1st/Nesmith for Barnes, but not Gordon when they were so widely reported to have Gordon as their top target.
 
No troll here, even though I have in the past. Do you know have any idea if they offered that package for Gordon? That's my hold-up; it seems so unlikely they offer 1st/Nesmith for Barnes, but not Gordon when they were so widely reported to have Gordon as their top target.
i have heard it’s likely but I don’t know for an absolute fact.
 
No troll here, even though I have in the past. Do you know have any idea if they offered that package for Gordon? That's my hold-up; it seems so unlikely they offer 1st/Nesmith for Barnes, but not Gordon when they were so widely reported to have Gordon as their top target.
We will likely never know what was actually offered in trades most of the time. I heard Damien Barling say the other day that he had a very good source that claims Boston never made any offer for Barnes. Not sure I believe that, but who knows?
 
We will likely never know what was actually offered in trades most of the time. I heard Damien Barling say the other day that he had a very good source that claims Boston never made any offer for Barnes. Not sure I believe that, but who knows?
That's called having your old coach become your new GM and them attempting to smooth things over now that the dust has settled, lol.