Otto Porter

[pdxKingsFan]

Okay so we agree that the issue is not the pick taking a long time for the pick to convey, but now we're creating another reason why not to do it...

No, I think there is still a fair chance with the current injuries that we still wind up with a top 10 pick. At which point we can't do anything pick related for 3 seasons. Which is a big deal if you just want to deal up or down to take a guy you really like. That alone for me seals this as a no deal.

But I have a dozen reasons I don't like this deal, and yes, I think the possibility of the trade making us worse is very much one of them. I don't think that playing some combo of Barnes and Porter (or heaven forbid Bogs and Porter!!) together at the 3/4 spots is conducive to the defensive identity we are building.

Chemistry, cap management issues, the impending return of Fox and Bagley and trying to do too much at one time, Porter's own recent injury troubles and lackluster play, etc. etc.

Hard pass.

 

[upinsmoke]

At the end of the day I hold out on this deal and give W. Gabriel time to develop into that role.

 

[twslam07]

No, I think there is still a fair chance with the current injuries that we still wind up with a top 10 pick. At which point we can't do anything pick related for 3 seasons. Which is a big deal if you just want to deal up or down to take a guy you really like. That alone for me seals this as a no deal.

But I have a dozen reasons I don't like this deal, and yes, I think the possibility of the trade making us worse is very much one of them. I don't think that playing some combo of Barnes and Porter (or heaven forbid Bogs and Porter!!) together at the 3/4 spots is conducive to the defensive identity we are building.

Chemistry, cap management issues, the impending return of Fox and Bagley and trying to do too much at one time, Porter's own recent injury troubles and lackluster play, etc. etc.

Hard pass.

Again, what’s the concern on chemistry? An all around player who can fit into any offense, accept a role, and put the team first is not going to disrupt our chemistry. If anything, it would improve it.

Again, what’s the concern on cap? I already outlined how we’d keep Fox, Hield, Bogdan, Barnes, Porter, Bagley, & Holmes.

Why is Fox/Bagley coming back a bad thing? Are you saying that Fox & Bagley are not going to know how to fit in with Hield, Bogdan, Barnes, & Bjelica? All guys they played with last year?

Porter has had injuries this year. Yes, but plays in 86% of his games.

How is Porter’s play lackluster? Advanced analytics love this guy. He’s efficient, shoots well, plays good defense, etc. if you want to judge his play while being hurt that’s on you. It’s like judging Bogdan pre & post hamstring injury. It can impact how effective he is but it doesn’t detract from the player he is healthy.

You can still trade up & down on draft day. I don’t think you understand how the stephien rule works. Now if you wanted to package your pick in the current draft (on draft day) then that’s different. But the fact that you said “trade down” means you think you can say trade the #10 pick for #15 & #20. That’s incorrect, so your reason that “seals this as a no deal” is debunked.

Heaven forbid Bogdan at SF & Porter at PF? You do realize that we currently play Bogdan at SF & Barnes at PF? How is this any different? Porter is a good defender (he’s been better than Barnes defensively). You’re grasping at straws at this point.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

You’re grasping at straws at this point.

Ok you are in love with your deal and will defend it tirelessly though not one other poster on this thread agrees this move makes sense for this team.

I'm just going to bow out.

 

[bajaden]

Okay so we agree that the issue is not the pick taking a long time for the pick to convey, but now we're creating another reason why not to do it...

What depth are we removing? Dunn & Porter for Joseph, Ariza, & Giles.

Dunn has been playing better (or at least on par) with Joseph this year. They are similar PGs in that they aren't strong shooters but very good defenders, and Dunn is a better passer/playmaker as well. Ferrell has outplayed Joseph in my opinion this year too, so what depth are we losing at PG? Doesn't sound like any. We may actually be improving our PG rotation.

Porter for Ariza is an obvious upgrade but you're forgetting that Porter will get time at PF as well and is typically a 30 mpg player. Ariza is averaging 22 mpg and Giles 7.4 mpg (if he even gets on the floor), and Giles typically has only seen the floor while Ariza has been out. He's only played in 3 games when Ariza has been healthy. You'd have to imagine that when Fox & Bagley are back, he'll never see the floor. So you're really talking about losing depth by moving a PF/C that barely sees the floor (e.g. injuries or foul trouble) while upgrading Ariza significantly.

Fox (36 min) / Dunn (12 min) / Ferrell
Hield (30 min) / Bogdan (18 min) / James
Barnes (30 min) / Bogdan (12 min) / Porter (6 min) / Gabriel
Bagley (24 min) / Porter (24 min) / Bjelica / Swanigan
Holmes (30 min) / Bagley (12 min) / Dedmon (6 min)

Now you essentially have Bjelica in Giles role. That's a decent player that can fill in if injuries hit again. You have Ferrell who tends to always produce when his number is called and you have James who has looked productive in his short stints.

So again, how can you argue that this trade makes us worse this season?

To take your last sentence first, you can argue anything, but proving it is quite another matter. Either for or against is an abstract argument to some degree. Look, I was and to some extent, still am a big Otto Porter fan. But, we do now have Barnes, and on a significant contract, so I don't see a need to go after Porter. Then there is the health issue with Porter, and as much as I like him, there's no denying his injury history. We could assume that he'll be healthy for the rest of his career, or not. No way to know.

Finally, I don't believe the Kings can trade their 2020 1st rd pick because they didn't have a 2019 1st rd pick, and you can't trade 1st rd picks two years in a row. Now we know there are ways to get around that, with a wink/wink deal, but legally, they can't trade that pick. They can of course trade their 2021 1st rd pick.

Personally, if I were going to take a gamble on a player that's also suffered a lot of injuries, it would be Kevin Love, who would, if healthy be a great fit next to Bagley. Call which ever one you want our center. In today's league it doesn't seem to matter, but Love can spread the floor, he's a terrific passer and rebounder and a very good post player when allowed to play in the post. However, I doubt either of these trades will happen, especially the Otto Porter trade since we already have a starting SF.

 

[SacTownKid]

I think Ariza is becoming a solid piece to the rotation. Defensively he's been huge and I don't think Porter can bring the same kind of one on one D Ariza does.

 

[FoxOnTheRun]

I honestly can't tell you what I hate more...
Having another team hold our draft picks over our heads for half a decade or us keeping the pick and Vlade calling the shots on draft night. An absolute lose/lose situation if there ever was one.

 

[tastyburger]

Redundant means that he’s not needed or useful. What’s your reasoning?

Im fully aware of what redundant means. I think he plays the same role as Barnes , but without the post skills. He's paid WAY too much to be a bench guy (some would say he's just flat out paid too much), he's incredibly injury prone, and we need to keep our cap space to prepare for fox and bagley deals. 2 years ago? Sure. Now? No way.

 

[twslam07]

To take your last sentence first, you can argue anything, but proving it is quite another matter. Either for or against is an abstract argument to some degree. Look, I was and to some extent, still am a big Otto Porter fan. But, we do now have Barnes, and on a significant contract, so I don't see a need to go after Porter. Then there is the health issue with Porter, and as much as I like him, there's no denying his injury history. We could assume that he'll be healthy for the rest of his career, or not. No way to know.

Finally, I don't believe the Kings can trade their 2020 1st rd pick because they didn't have a 2019 1st rd pick, and you can't trade 1st rd picks two years in a row. Now we know there are ways to get around that, with a wink/wink deal, but legally, they can't trade that pick. They can of course trade their 2021 1st rd pick.

Personally, if I were going to take a gamble on a player that's also suffered a lot of injuries, it would be Kevin Love, who would, if healthy be a great fit next to Bagley. Call which ever one you want our center. In today's league it doesn't seem to matter, but Love can spread the floor, he's a terrific passer and rebounder and a very good post player when allowed to play in the post. However, I doubt either of these trades will happen, especially the Otto Porter trade since we already have a starting SF.

Again, he's played 86% of his games (excluding his rookie year where he was getting DNP-CD). That's not the best in the world but it certainly doesn't scream injury prone.

And no, you're misinformed. They can trade their 2020 1st round pick. The rule you're referencing doesn't care about past picks. It basically states that you can't have two future drafts without a 1st round pick. The fact that the Kings didn't have a 1st round pick last year doesn't play a role in what 1st round picks they can trade now.

Love may be a good fit offensively, but defensively would be very worrisome. Love is not a good defender, and Bagley has been poor on that end of the floor well. Sure, he could always develop into a good defender, but you're taking a pretty big risk with potentially having two below average defenders as your big men.

 

[bajaden]

Again, he's played 86% of his games (excluding his rookie year where he was getting DNP-CD). That's not the best in the world but it certainly doesn't scream injury prone.

And no, you're misinformed. They can trade their 2020 1st round pick. The rule you're referencing doesn't care about past picks. It basically states that you can't have two future drafts without a 1st round pick. The fact that the Kings didn't have a 1st round pick last year doesn't play a role in what 1st round picks they can trade now.

Love may be a good fit offensively, but defensively would be very worrisome. Love is not a good defender, and Bagley has been poor on that end of the floor well. Sure, he could always develop into a good defender, but you're taking a pretty big risk with potentially having two below average defenders as your big men.

The rule I'm referring to is the Stepien rule, which states a team cannot trade it's 1st round pick two consecutive years. We didn't have a 1st rd pick last year because it was traded, so unless I'm misunderstanding the rule, to trade our 2020 1st rd pick would be trading our 1st in two consecutive years.

As for Love and his defense, I certainly won't say he's a great defender, but he's not terrible, and within a team defense system, he's not that bad. I won't disagree on the injuries. That would certainly be a risk, and maybe a greater risk than Porter. Porter has youth on his side, although Love is still only 31 years old. My main disagreement on Porter is that we don't need him, unless your replacing Ariza with him, and that would make Porter a very expensive bench player.

 

[twslam07]

Im fully aware of what redundant means. I think he plays the same role as Barnes , but without the post skills. He's paid WAY too much to be a bench guy (some would say he's just flat out paid too much), he's incredibly injury prone, and we need to keep our cap space to prepare for fox and bagley deals. 2 years ago? Sure. Now? No way.

I'll be the first to admit that Barnes & Porter do play similar roles, but I guess where I differ from most of you is why it's bad to have two SF/PFs that are versatile, efficient, good defenders, good shooters, know their role, & can score a bit. Having multiple long, defensive wings who also help you offensively is a good thing to have. It's not redundant.

He's overpaid on his current contract, sure. So was Barnes when we traded for him. Like I mentioned up above, I'd be very surprised if his next deal has him making $27-28 per year just like I said I would be surprised if Barnes would make $24-25 mil per year in his next contract at the time. So this whole "he's overpaid" argument seems rather flimsy to me when he's up for a new contract soon.

He's incredibly injury prone? He's played in 86% of his games (excluding his rookie year where he was getting DNP-CD). How is that "incredibly" injury prone? Durant is at 85.7%, Curry is at 84.3%, George is at 82.7%, Davis is at 81.8%, Leonard is at 73%. Hey may not be LeBron James but people are acting like he's sitting out all the time.

Keeping Fox & Bagley? I've already outlined how that could happen in my earlier posts. What is the issue?

 

[VF21]

I’m not sure I’m understanding your post.

You’re saying if someone is hurt and we trade for him that he could end up with a career ending injury because we are the kings and have some sort of curse over our heads?

My basic point is that you love to propose these trade scenarios but don't seem very happy if people don't agree with them.

I don't think we need Otto Porter. I think he's injury prone. You may not agree, which is definitely your prerogative, but that's not gonna change my mind.

I'm following the lead of pdxkingsfan and bowing out.

 

[twslam07]

The rule I'm referring to is the Stepien rule, which states a team cannot trade it's 1st round pick two consecutive years. We didn't have a 1st rd pick last year because it was traded, so unless I'm misunderstanding the rule, to trade our 2020 1st rd pick would be trading our 1st in two consecutive years.

As for Love and his defense, I certainly won't say he's a great defender, but he's not terrible, and within a team defense system, he's not that bad. I won't disagree on the injuries. That would certainly be a risk, and maybe a greater risk than Porter. Porter has youth on his side, although Love is still only 31 years old. My main disagreement on Porter is that we don't need him, unless your replacing Ariza with him, and that would make Porter a very expensive bench player.

Yeah, you're misinterpreting the rule. Here is a quote of it:

First Round Draft Choice. No Member may sell its rights to select a player in the first round of any NBA Draft for cash or its equivalent, or trade or exchange its right to select a player in the first round of any NBA Draft if the result of such trade or exchange may be to leave the Member without first-round picks in any two (2) consecutive future NBA Drafts.”

I'm fine with Love the player. He'd be a great fit next to Holmes who could cover a lot of his deficiencies on defense. It's the fact that you'd be pairing him with Bagley which gives me pause.

Did LeBron need both Wade & Bosh? Did the Warriors need Durant? Talent is talent. Porter is a good player and would make this team better. Long wing defenders who can produce offensively are at a premium. Having two of them (who also can easily play together for stretches) is not a negative.

The other issue I have with the "we don't need him" argument is who do we need then? We have Fox at PG, Bogdan/Hield at SG, Barnes at SF, Bagley at PF, & Holmes at C. Who do we need? This strengthens the bench while also strengthening the finishing lineup (Fox-Hield/Bogdan-Barnes-Porter-Bagley).

 

[Capt. Factorial]

The rule I'm referring to is the Stepien rule, which states a team cannot trade it's 1st round pick two consecutive years. We didn't have a 1st rd pick last year because it was traded, so unless I'm misunderstanding the rule, to trade our 2020 1st rd pick would be trading our 1st in two consecutive years.

Sorry Baja, but twslam is right here. The Stepien Rule specifically applies to two consecutive future drafts - once the 2019 draft is over, the Stepien Rule doesn't care whether you had a pick in 2019 or not.

 

[twslam07]

My basic point is that you love to propose these trade scenarios but don't seem very happy if people don't agree with them.

I don't think we need Otto Porter. I think he's injury prone. You may not agree, which is definitely your prerogative, but that's not gonna change my mind.

I'm following the lead of pdxkingsfan and bowing out.

Well sure I propose them because I think they are good ideas. If someone else thinks they aren't good ideas, I prefer them to explain their reasoning. Isn't that what a forum is about?

Let me ask you this, what do you think we need? We're certainly not a championship contender so we definitely need something...

 

[VF21]

Well sure I propose them because I think they are good ideas. If someone else thinks they aren't good ideas, I prefer them to explain their reasoning. Isn't that what a forum is about?

Let me ask you this, what do you think we need? We're certainly not a championship contender so we definitely need something...

A forum is what a forum is... Not a lot of posters go to the lengths you do to construct their posts or their responses, so your preference isn't always going to win out.

As far as the second part? I don't think we need Otto Porter. However, since you asked, what I think we need is to wait and see what the team looks like at full strength before we try and identify future needs. I do think we need fewer pieces than some might think to actually take that next step but only time will tell.

Now, I'm going back to the game.

GO KINGS!!

 

[regularkingsfan]

Let me ask you this, what do you think we need? We're certainly not a championship contender so we definitely need something...

An upgrade at either center or shooting guard. It is pretty difficult to upgrade from Buddy so center is more likely.

Bogi and Holmes for Steven Adams.

 

[twslam07]

An upgrade at either center or shooting guard. It is pretty difficult to upgrade from Buddy so center is more likely.

Bogi and Holmes for Steven Adams.

Is Adams even an upgrade over Holmes? He's definitely not $20 mil better.

I'd rather pay $20+ mil to a an all-around SF/PF who I know won't be run off the court in crunch time due to his lack of floor spacing & FT% and to a player that compliments our current core. Adams may complement Bagley on the defensive end, but he doesn't complement him on the offensive end. If we're going to be paying top dollar for a C. He better complement Bagley.

 

[iowamcnabb]

How about Andre Iguodala? He will get traded to a contender at the deadline, how about to us? I am sure the Grizz want a first for him but I don't know if anyone will be offering. I'd give up a couple seconds for him.

 

[Kangztillidie]

What makes you think we can’t keep them? I outlined in my original post how it would work. Making comments like this without reading the OP baffles me.

What you did was assumed. You assumed I didnt read the OP. I did.


What I'm not doing is foolishly assuming Vivek is gonna pony up $170 million to not be a championship shoe in. Because that's bad business. To assume a payroll for 7 players at 150 mill, just for those 7 players, without a guarantee of being a top 3 or 4 team with a legitimate shot at winning multiple championships is, for lack of a better word, retarded.

 

[Kangztillidie]

I'll be the first to admit that Barnes & Porter do play similar roles, but I guess where I differ from most of you is why it's bad to have two SF/PFs that are versatile, efficient, good defenders, good shooters, know their role, & can score a bit. Having multiple long, defensive wings who also help you offensively is a good thing to have. It's not redundant.

He's overpaid on his current contract, sure. So was Barnes when we traded for him. Like I mentioned up above, I'd be very surprised if his next deal has him making $27-28 per year just like I said I would be surprised if Barnes would make $24-25 mil per year in his next contract at the time. So this whole "he's overpaid" argument seems rather flimsy to me when he's up for a new contract soon.

He's incredibly injury prone? He's played in 86% of his games (excluding his rookie year where he was getting DNP-CD). How is that "incredibly" injury prone? Durant is at 85.7%, Curry is at 84.3%, George is at 82.7%, Davis is at 81.8%, Leonard is at 73%. Hey may not be LeBron James but people are acting like he's sitting out all the time.

Keeping Fox & Bagley? I've already outlined how that could happen in my earlier posts. What is the issue?

So you are basically saying we should trade assets and a draft pick for a player we hope will sign with us for our asking price (which would move us out of the Bogie sweepstakes) and hinder our cap for years?

Wha?

 

[regularkingsfan]

Is Adams even an upgrade over Holmes? He's definitely not $20 mil better.

I'd rather pay $20+ mil to a an all-around SF/PF who I know won't be run off the court in crunch time due to his lack of floor spacing & FT% and to a player that compliments our current core. Adams may complement Bagley on the defensive end, but he doesn't complement him on the offensive end. If we're going to be paying top dollar for a C. He better complement Bagley.

Adams is better than Holmes, not sure how much but should be quite a gap. Besides, Holmes is having a career year. I say sell high before he regresses. His mid range shot’s efficiency is actually starting to regress.

 

[jellyfish]

Adams is better than Holmes, not sure how much but should be quite a gap. Besides, Holmes is having a career year. I say sell high before he regresses. His mid range shot’s efficiency is actually starting to regress.

Steve Adams is not better than Holmes , players like Adams/Capela/Deandre Jordan are the ultimate fool's gold they get overpaid and are basic average players who when the heat is on in the playoffs get melted into the bench. Imagine the numbers Holmes would be putting up playing with Houston/OKC (Russ/PG version) and CP3 Clippers.

Also Bogi is way better/valuable than Adams as well.

 

[twslam07]

What you did was assumed. You assumed I didnt read the OP. I did.


What I'm not doing is foolishly assuming Vivek is gonna pony up $170 million to not be a championship shoe in. Because that's bad business. To assume a payroll for 7 players at 150 mill, just for those 7 players, without a guarantee of being a top 3 or 4 team with a legitimate shot at winning multiple championships is, for lack of a better word, retarded.

As I've stated before, I wouldn't do this deal if Vivek wasn't willing to pay that type of payroll, and considering if I was in Vlade's position, I would have access to Vivek to gauge what he'd be willing to pay so the risk of "would Vivek pony up $170 mil" is somewhat irrelevant because someone in Vlade's position would already know that answer. Now we can speculate on what the answer is but the trade is under the assumption that Vivek would in fact do his job. I think everyone can agree that we wouldn't do this trade if Vivek was not willing to spend.

As far as assumptions go, why are you assuming that we would keep this payroll if we are not a top team? If we do this trade and top out as a 6th or 7th seed, then yeah you're going to trade a Hield, a Bogdan, a Barnes, a Porter, etc. for future assets in an attempt to reset around Bagley & Fox. We would only keep the high payroll if it's working and the team is playing well.

Also, why is $150 mil across 7 players viewed as this massive payroll? It would be under today's salary cap but that ~$150 mil across 7 players payroll would be in 2022-23. Below are the current cap/tax levels:

2019-20: $109 cap/$132.7 tax
2020-21: $116 cap/$141 tax
2021-22: $125 cap/$151 tax

There aren't projections past that yet but assuming they increase at a similar % they will look close to...

2022-23: $134.7 cap/$161.7 tax
2023-24: $145.1 cap/173.2 tax

So again, that $150 mil in 2022-23 will be a time when the cap is ~$134.7 mil & the tax is ~$161.7. Then the next year, Barnes' contract is off the books and flexibility is there again. So depending on us just using our 1st & 2nd round picks to fill in around these 7 players, depending on where the tax line actually falls, & depending on how much we give to Bogdan, Porter, Fox, Bagley, & Holmes, we could actually still be below the tax line that year.

So how is this "retarded" as you so eloquently put it?

 

[twslam07]

So you are basically saying we should trade assets and a draft pick for a player we hope will sign with us for our asking price (which would move us out of the Bogie sweepstakes) and hinder our cap for years?

Wha?

No, it doesn't hinder our ability to resign Bogdan nor does it hinder our cap for years, but you got the rest of it correct.

 

[regularkingsfan]

Steve Adams is not better than Holmes , players like Adams/Capela/Deandre Jordan are the ultimate fool's gold they get overpaid and are basic average players who when the heat is on in the playoffs get melted into the bench. Imagine the numbers Holmes would be putting up playing with Houston/OKC (Russ/PG version) and CP3 Clippers.

Also Bogi is way better/valuable than Adams as well.

Holmes fouls a bit too much. Even though the foul rate is lower this year, it is still very high compared to Adams. This team is 19th in def rating. They are in the bottom 10 in term of giving up opponent FTAs, and especially worst in the league in giving up FTAs to opponent centers. Adams would be able to help in this area.

Holmes is a good rebounder but Adams is excellent.

Adams can be a high post facilitator which would free up Bjelica to provide floor spacing.

 

[twslam07]

Holmes fouls a bit too much. Even though the foul rate is lower this year, it is still very high compared to Adams. This team is 19th in def rating. They are in the bottom 10 in term of giving up opponent FTAs, and especially worst in the league in giving up FTAs to opponent centers. Adams would be able to help in this area.

Holmes is a good rebounder but Adams is excellent.

Adams can be a high post facilitator which would free up Bjelica to provide floor spacing.

Adams is a good player, but he's not much better (if at all) than Holmes. Holmes has been great defensively this year.

Def On/Off
Holmes = -4.2
Adams = +2.7

DPIPM
Holmes = +1.70
Adams = +0.95

So again, why would we trade for a similar quality player who makes $20 mil more than Holmes when that player doesn't complement Bagley on both sides of the ball (Holmes & Adams are good complements defensively but are sub-par complements offensively). I can live with a C who doesn't fit great with Bagley, but if that player is getting paid rather handsomely, then I have issues.

 

[regularkingsfan]

Adams is a good player, but he's not much better (if at all) than Holmes. Holmes has been great defensively this year.

Def On/Off
Holmes = -4.2
Adams = +2.7

DPIPM
Holmes = +1.70
Adams = +0.95

So again, why would we trade for a similar quality player who makes $20 mil more than Holmes when that player doesn't complement Bagley on both sides of the ball (Holmes & Adams are good complements defensively but are sub-par complements offensively). I can live with a C who doesn't fit great with Bagley, but if that player is getting paid rather handsomely, then I have issues.

Well, my trade idea is just as superfluous as yours. Why would you want to waste +$20 mil on a probably-bench role player who is similar to Barnes?

If you think Holmes is great defensively then you have to upgrade from Buddy. Because this team is not good defensively, 19th in the league. Bottom 10 in opponent FTAs and eFG%. They foul a lot and they can't force bad shots. Give up the most 3PT made to opponent shooting guards and give up the most FTAs to opponent centers.

 

[twslam07]

Well, my trade idea is just as superfluous as yours. Why would you want to waste +$20 mil on a probably-bench role player who is similar to Barnes?

If you think Holmes is great defensively then you have to upgrade from Buddy. Because this team is not good defensively, 19th in the league. Bottom 10 in opponent FTAs and eFG%. They foul a lot and they can't force bad shots. Give up the most 3PT made to opponent shooting guards and give up the most FTAs to opponent centers.

Like I mentioned above, I'm willing to pay a C $20+ mil, but if I am, they must be a good fit that complements Bagley both offensively & defensively. Adams does not complement Bagley with his lack of floor spacing. Again, Holmes doesn't provide floor spacing either, but we're not using a huge chunk of our cap on him (he takes up 4% of our cap). Adams would be around 24% of our cap.

I'm okay spending on guys that fit & complement our core. Porter fits & complements our core both offensively & defensively. You may start the game with both Bagley & Holmes out there (with Barnes or Porter on the bench), but you can finish the game with Fox-Hield/Bogdan-Barnes-Porter-Bagley. If we did this trade for Adams, you're then finishing the games with 1 of 2 lineups:

Fox-Hield/Bogdan-Barnes-Bagley-Adams

• We would have 2 good/great 3pt shooters (Hield/Bogdan & Barnes)
• We would have 3 good/great defenders (Fox, Barnes, & Adams)
• We wouldn't be undersized at any position
• Adams with his FT% could lead to a hack-a-adams situation

Fox-Hield-Bogdan-Barnes-Bagley

• We would have 3 good/great 3pt shooters (Hield, Bogdan, & Barnes)
• We would have 2 good/great defenders (Fox & Barnes)
• We would be undersized with Bogdan at SF & Barnes at PF
• You'd be paying a player $25 mil to not close out games for your team

The lineup I'm proposing to end games:

Fox-Hield/Bogdan-Barnes-Porter-Bagley

• We would have 3 good/great 3pt shooters (Hield/Bogdan, Barnes, & Porter)
• We would have 3 good/great defenders (Fox, Barnes, & Porter)
• We wouldn't be as undersized as the lineup above (Fox, Hield, & Barnes all play their natural position & then you have Porter with his 8'9.5" standing reach & 7'1.5" wingspan at PF.
• You'd be paying one of Hield/Bogdan to not close out games for your team (but perhaps Bogdan may be used when the team is winning to help limit turnovers, make good decisions, etc. to prevent the other team from catching up and Hield is used if we're down and we need the extra scoring/shooting potential).

My lineup seems like a better option. Do you agree?

 

[twslam07]

If you think Holmes is great defensively then you have to upgrade from Buddy. Because this team is not good defensively, 19th in the league. Bottom 10 in opponent FTAs and eFG%. They foul a lot and they can't force bad shots. Give up the most 3PT made to opponent shooting guards and give up the most FTAs to opponent centers.

Well they've been 16th since November (after their horrible start) so let's see how it progresses over time, but yes the defense can continue to improve. The point is that Holmes has been our best defender. He's not the problem on defense. He's 34th in the league right now in DPIPM (16th among Cs & 12th among starting Cs).