Post National Media Coverage Here

I'm not real happy about the trades because I personally don't think they'll make the team any better but even I wouldn't give it a D+. If we gave up Bogie or someone to get these guys then I could see people giving it a bad grade but they hardly gave up anything.
Interested to get your take on the Barnes trade and why you're not real happy. Not sure who else we could get for that position and who would fit better.
 
Interested to get your take on the Barnes trade and why you're not real happy. Not sure who else we could get for that position and who would fit better.
I'm just not sold on Barnes. I see him as a 13ppg guy masquerading as a 19ppg scorer and that hurts his team overall because you don't want 1/5th or so of your scoring to be of the inefficient variety. His TS% in his 3 years in Dallas have all been a tick below what JJ gave us this year. So kind of imagine JJ shooting the way he did this year except he took twice as many shots. Not exactly what you would want when you have guys like Buddy, Fox, Bagley etc that are much more efficient.

He is a solid 3 point shooter and hits his free throws. Other than that, he's basically average to below average at everything, including defense. People want him to get back to his playing style with the Warriors when he moved the ball more but he's basically had the same assist rate his entire career.

If things work out, Barnes backs down to about 13ppg and bumps his efficiency up. Basically playing like a veteran version of the way he played in Golden State. Which wasn't much different, he just pulled the trigger less back then because he was younger and there were obviously better options on the team.

If things go the way I think they might, he's going to continue to try and chase high scoring numbers despite not being efficient at it. His usage rate only dropped slightly this year, even with the arrival of Luka and his ball dominance. That has me kind of worried. He's also a bit of a ball stopper with an assist rate in between Jackson and Bagley so he doesn't make his teammates better. The defense is going to get worse by default with the loss of Shumpert but there is potential the offense can get worse as well if Barnes has it made up in his mind that he is a top dog and not a high level role player.

I would have much preferred to try and pry away a player that's more like Kent Bazemore who brings a bunch of skills to the table that are of the average to above average variety than a guy who just shoots a lot.
 

Capt. Factorial

Embarrassed Beyond Belief
Staff member
This is such lazy reporting. Total joke. The plan?? Hello??? The plan has been detailed and consistent since Vlade came on board and then became clear to all after the Cousins trade. Apparently USA Today can't afford an actual reporter.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/gallery/nba-trade-grades-deadline

View attachment 8878
Holy guac. All I can say is that if that dude got PAID for that article, DUDE, USA TODAY GIVE ME A CALL. Because holy guac. And it's not just the Kings' grade. He gives some teams N/As for not doing anything, but gives other teams letter grades for not doing anything. That's nice and consistent. The Kings get the worst grade of any team (tied with the Hornets, who got their terrible grade for losing a bidding war with Toronto), but the Hawks get a B for adding Shelvin Mack? And oh, the insights: "That is a thing you can do." My brain hurts just from "reading" it.
 
I'm just not sold on Barnes. I see him as a 13ppg guy masquerading as a 19ppg scorer and that hurts his team overall because you don't want 1/5th or so of your scoring to be of the inefficient variety. His TS% in his 3 years in Dallas have all been a tick below what JJ gave us this year. So kind of imagine JJ shooting the way he did this year except he took twice as many shots. Not exactly what you would want when you have guys like Buddy, Fox, Bagley etc that are much more efficient.

He is a solid 3 point shooter and hits his free throws. Other than that, he's basically average to below average at everything, including defense. People want him to get back to his playing style with the Warriors when he moved the ball more but he's basically had the same assist rate his entire career.

If things work out, Barnes backs down to about 13ppg and bumps his efficiency up. Basically playing like a veteran version of the way he played in Golden State. Which wasn't much different, he just pulled the trigger less back then because he was younger and there were obviously better options on the team.

If things go the way I think they might, he's going to continue to try and chase high scoring numbers despite not being efficient at it. His usage rate only dropped slightly this year, even with the arrival of Luka and his ball dominance. That has me kind of worried. He's also a bit of a ball stopper with an assist rate in between Jackson and Bagley so he doesn't make his teammates better. The defense is going to get worse by default with the loss of Shumpert but there is potential the offense can get worse as well if Barnes has it made up in his mind that he is a top dog and not a high level role player.

I would have much preferred to try and pry away a player that's more like Kent Bazemore who brings a bunch of skills to the table that are of the average to above average variety than a guy who just shoots a lot.
I see what you're saying to a degree about the 13 pt guy masquerading as a 19 pt guy... BUT... I'm counting on 1. the strong culture we have here that will allow/force him to fit in. Nobody's gonna tolerate hero ball. And 2. Jeorger.

He's got the tools to be what we need at the SF. All the rest... salary, fitting into the system, etc... yes, will have to work that out. My read is that he'll fit right in and that the system was never really right for him in Dallas. All talk about him is that he's a professional.

If he likes playing with these guys I think he'll find a way to fit in a contribute his best skills.
 
This is such lazy reporting. Total joke. The plan?? Hello??? The plan has been detailed and consistent since Vlade came on board and then became clear to all after the Cousins trade. Apparently USA Today can't afford an actual reporter.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/gallery/nba-trade-grades-deadline

View attachment 8878
This is an unbelievable take. It's like literally "I don't watch Kings games ever and they are bottom of the West and they just traded for a guy the Mavs used poorly so it must mean he sucks too. F-minus"
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
Holy guac. All I can say is that if that dude got PAID for that article, DUDE, USA TODAY GIVE ME A CALL. Because holy guac. And it's not just the Kings' grade. He gives some teams N/As for not doing anything, but gives other teams letter grades for not doing anything. That's nice and consistent. The Kings get the worst grade of any team (tied with the Hornets, who got their terrible grade for losing a bidding war with Toronto), but the Hawks get a B for adding Shelvin Mack? And oh, the insights: "That is a thing you can do." My brain hurts just from "reading" it.
I think USA Today is still trying to find a replacement for Sam Amick. :p
 
As recently as july last year we were a laughing stock of the competition. Hell even when we started the season well and the whole Brandan Williams - coach Joerger thing was leaked, everyone was saying "Here go Kangz again!"

Vlade tells owners to STFU and does some great work in a couple of days of trading and all of a sudden things look a lot different as we are one of the most exciting young teams out there.
 
I was listening to the Zach Lowe podcast and Bobby Marks said that Justin Jackson is better than Harrison Barnes. Lowe shut him down immediately with several points. I can see why Marks is now giving hot takes on podcasts instead of working in an NBA front office. It's entertaining when he has to explain dumb moves from his Nets tenure though.
Kings rejected Marks for the GM job and picked Vlade instead. He's bitter. I knew he was full of it when he said the 1 year of Barnes salary was going to hamstring the Kings but the Otto Porter contract was fine in Chicago.
 
I was listening to the Zach Lowe podcast and Bobby Marks said that Justin Jackson is better than Harrison Barnes. Lowe shut him down immediately with several points. I can see why Marks is now giving hot takes on podcasts instead of working in an NBA front office. It's entertaining when he has to explain dumb moves from his Nets tenure though.
Yeah, I heard that also. Ridiculous. I still struggle to understand how anyone even associated with the nets trade for Garnett and Pierce that destroyed the franchise for the last half decade can somehow be held up as a front office “insider” with all sorts of prestige. I realize he wasn’t the GM that actually pulled the trigger on that trade, but his stank is on it. He is no Jerry West and hot takes about how Jackson could be a better player is just stupid and out of touch.
 
Simmons on Bagley.


Fox is #13 in his list, I think starts around minute 13.
I hadn’t listened to Simmons in a long while and now I remember why I haven’t. Already calling the bout when the 1st round isn’t even over. It’s one thing when fans overreact to the moment, but these guys that get paid to do it need to be more responsible. BS has been around long enough to know better.
 
Last edited:
Kings rejected Marks for the GM job and picked Vlade instead. He's bitter. I knew he was full of it when he said the 1 year of Barnes salary was going to hamstring the Kings but the Otto Porter contract was fine in Chicago.
He’s also good buddies with Woj and PDA—so those three have had it out for Vivek and Vlade ever since PDA got fired. But yeah, Marks was a party to some of the most brainless front office decisions in history and has a very limited network, so his continued inclusion as an insider is pretty curious.
 
I hadn’t listened to Simmons in a long while and now I remember why I haven’t. Already calling the bout when the 1st round isn’t even over. It’s one thing when fans overreact to the moment, but these guys that get paid to it need to be more responsible. BS has been around long enough to know better.
The flip side of that is... when you watch as much basketball as Bill Simmons has, you just kindof know. Seeing Lebron for the first time and KD for the first time, you knew. You didn't know quite how good they would be or how long it would take but you knew they were going to start at least 5 All-Star games and probably more like 10-15 if they stayed healthy. Bagley probably will be a very good player in the near future and it doesn't matter anymore who we didn't pick in the draft. If somebody, anybody, wants to say the Kings made a mistake in the draft, yeah there's always a bit of wait and see. Ayton looks horrible on this Suns team, for instance, but I'm not going to write the book on his NBA career yet. Some players do take longer.

But it's also true that there's a special category of player that just jumps off the screen at you from day one as having "it" whatever that is. I knew the first time I saw DeMarcus Cousins play as a high schooler that he had it. I knew the first time I saw DeAaron Fox play too. Luka is in the category. Acknowledging that fact isn't poor analysis. Simmons has always been more of a superfan than an objective journalist anyway. If you want numbers rather than hunches, his style is probably not for you.
 
The flip side of that is... when you watch as much basketball as Bill Simmons has, you just kindof know.
I don't think it's that simple. I've been watching basketball (and other sports) as much and as long as Simmons. I often think I know, and sometimes I do, but I often don't really know. Difference is, I can admit that. Furthermore, while we can see something in a player, you can't know for sure that player A is better than player B less than a year into the process. That's more my point.

I ended up being right about Steph Curry over Tyreke Evans. But it didn't look that way after year 1 or probably even year 2. And while I felt Curry was going to be good, I had no clue he'd be the transcendent player he's become. But I've been on the other end of it too. I was convinced 18 yo Kobe Bryant was going to be humbled when he entered the league back in 1996. While it did take him several years to get going, how ridiculous does that opinion look now?

I have no doubt that Luka is going to continue to improve and remain one of the best players from this past draft. And while he might be, it's far from a sure thing that he's still going to be better than MB3 or Jaren Jackson or Trae Young (or whatever other name someone would like to add to the list) next season or 3 years from now. Just like Tyreke v. Steph or Fox v. Mitchell, Tatum, Ball and Kuzma. The tide may change.

Tyreke Evans was only a few months older than Luka is now when he averaged 20/5/5 and won ROY in 2009/10. Fans forget how upbeat everyone was after that first season. Same even goes for Jason Williams and all his creativity and flashy play in 1998/99. But neither player achieved the level many thought they knew was in store for them while other players from the respective drafts surpassed them.

So circling back to my point, as much basketball as BS has seen over 40+ years, he should know better than to rush to judgement. Not about Luka being a good or even great player, but about the KINGS making a mistake. He doesn't know that yet. None of us do.
 
The flip side of that is... when you watch as much basketball as Bill Simmons has, you just kindof know. Seeing Lebron for the first time and KD for the first time, you knew. You didn't know quite how good they would be or how long it would take but you knew they were going to start at least 5 All-Star games and probably more like 10-15 if they stayed healthy. Bagley probably will be a very good player in the near future and it doesn't matter anymore who we didn't pick in the draft. If somebody, anybody, wants to say the Kings made a mistake in the draft, yeah there's always a bit of wait and see. Ayton looks horrible on this Suns team, for instance, but I'm not going to write the book on his NBA career yet. Some players do take longer.

But it's also true that there's a special category of player that just jumps off the screen at you from day one as having "it" whatever that is. I knew the first time I saw DeMarcus Cousins play as a high schooler that he had it. I knew the first time I saw DeAaron Fox play too. Luka is in the category. Acknowledging that fact isn't poor analysis. Simmons has always been more of a superfan than an objective journalist anyway. If you want numbers rather than hunches, his style is probably not for you.
I don't think Bill Simmons has a hunch. It's an opinion and numbers on a sheet aren't really necessary for an informed decision based on observation.

There is a lot to be said for stylistic preferences as well as just outright preference in players. Some liked Magic and some liked Bird. Different positions and approaches to the game. Shaq or Kobe. There are tons of people who don't like Hardens game and couldn't care less about his stats.

Bill likes Bagley, but he prefers Luka. Sometimes even someone jumping off the screen to you is subjective and not a right or wrong situation.
 
Internet culture has really warped both the media’s and the fans’ appreciation for the long view. Everybody MUST offer their take NOW, and that take is the DEFINITIVE take. There’s power rankings and rookie ladders and week-to-week examinations of goings-on all across the league. Even the least noteworthy teams receive coverage that would have been unheard of twenty years ago. Columnists have to feed the content machine, after all. And the fans are ravenous to consume as much of it as possible regardless of utility or quality or perspective. Declarative statements are a dime a dozen online, and most of them simply do not hold up to scrutiny as time passes.

Add this to the fact that the NBA has expanded to include 30 teams, and the talent has correspondingly spread out (yes, even when accounting for the league’s “superteams”). This has caused a whole lot of rookies to enter the spotlight a helluvalot sooner than they might have in a different era. Expectations are much greater as a result, and the hyperbole rises accordingly. It mutates a great freshman season from Doncic into a “generational” one, and a slow burning season from Marvin Bagley into a referendum on the Kings’ front office, despite the fact that neither player’s ultimate trajectory is set in stone, and with almost no consideration for the surrounding context.
 
Last edited:
Felt like commenting on this, so be patient with my wall of text.

when you watch as much basketball as Bill Simmons has, you just kindof know.
A year or so back, you could tell Bill hadn't been watching as much NBA. I think he really got into the NFL and lightened up his basketball diet. As well, when he left ESPN and did TheRinger, he surrounded himself with Yes Men who did not question his random nonsense. (Zach Lowe, for his faults, always questioned Bill's worst takes.)

So I'd hear his NBA previews or season takes and they felt like a year or two behind what was going on. He sounded ten times more clueless than the guest he had on. He really had no clue what he was talking about with the exception of maybe two teams. He started getting called out for it online, even though his coworkers were still yes men. And here's the thing, everyone reads their social media hate and remembers it more than the social media love, so he probably started taking it to heart.

He still jumps to conclusions and speaks with a ton of recency bias, but if feels like he's making more effort to actually watch more games this year and understand what's going on. He made an effort to watch Denver games even though they're small market and was all in on them. And though his 67 wins for Boston is a joke now, the homerism isn't anything new. The problem was it was clear he was out of touch with the league. He seems much more keyed in this year.
 
Internet culture has really warped both the media’s and the fans’ appreciation for the long view. Everybody MUST offer their take NOW, and that take is the DEFINITIVE take. There’s power rankings and rookie ladders and week-to-week examinations of goings-on all across the league. Even the least noteworthy teams receive coverage that would have been unheard of twenty years ago. Columnists have to feed the content machine, after all. And the fans are ravenous to consume as much of it as possible regardless of utility or quality or perspective. Declarative statements are a dime a dozen online, and most of them simply do not hold up to scrutiny as time passes.

Add this to the fact that the NBA has expanded to include 30 teams, and the talent has correspondingly spread out (yes, even when accounting for the league’s “superteams”). This has caused a whole lot of rookies to enter the spotlight a helluvalot sooner than they might have in a different era. Expectations are much greater as a result, and the hyperbole rises accordingly. It mutates a great freshman season from Doncic into a “generational” one, and a slow burning season from Marvin Bagley into a referendum on the Kings’ front office, despite the fact that neither player’s ultimate trajectory is set in stone, and with almost no consideration for the surrounding context.

Well said. You outlined it a whole lot better than I did.
 
Felt like commenting on this, so be patient with my wall of text.



A year or so back, you could tell Bill hadn't been watching as much NBA. I think he really got into the NFL and lightened up his basketball diet. As well, when he left ESPN and did TheRinger, he surrounded himself with Yes Men who did not question his random nonsense. (Zach Lowe, for his faults, always questioned Bill's worst takes.)

So I'd hear his NBA previews or season takes and they felt like a year or two behind what was going on. He sounded ten times more clueless than the guest he had on. He really had no clue what he was talking about with the exception of maybe two teams. He started getting called out for it online, even though his coworkers were still yes men. And here's the thing, everyone reads their social media hate and remembers it more than the social media love, so he probably started taking it to heart.

He still jumps to conclusions and speaks with a ton of recency bias, but if feels like he's making more effort to actually watch more games this year and understand what's going on. He made an effort to watch Denver games even though they're small market and was all in on them. And though his 67 wins for Boston is a joke now, the homerism isn't anything new. The problem was it was clear he was out of touch with the league. He seems much more keyed in this year.
I sometimes wonder how it's humanly possible for a person to watch as much sports, television, movies and pop culture nonsense as Simmons' portrays. I think you hit the nail on the head. I find him very entertaining, but there is definitely an element of performance with a lot of behind the scenes feeding of hot takes to build his content around. I do think he's started to focus more on basketball again and as you say its resulted in a little more substance behind his opinions (which are always delivered with conviction whether or not he believes it or not).
 
I don't think it's that simple. I've been watching basketball (and other sports) as much and as long as Simmons. I often think I know, and sometimes I do, but I often don't really know. Difference is, I can admit that. Furthermore, while we can see something in a player, you can't know for sure that player A is better than player B less than a year into the process. That's more my point.

I ended up being right about Steph Curry over Tyreke Evans. But it didn't look that way after year 1 or probably even year 2. And while I felt Curry was going to be good, I had no clue he'd be the transcendent player he's become. But I've been on the other end of it too. I was convinced 18 yo Kobe Bryant was going to be humbled when he entered the league back in 1996. While it did take him several years to get going, how ridiculous does that opinion look now?

I have no doubt that Luka is going to continue to improve and remain one of the best players from this past draft. And while he might be, it's far from a sure thing that he's still going to be better than MB3 or Jaren Jackson or Trae Young (or whatever other name someone would like to add to the list) next season or 3 years from now. Just like Tyreke v. Steph or Fox v. Mitchell, Tatum, Ball and Kuzma. The tide may change.

Tyreke Evans was only a few months older than Luka is now when he averaged 20/5/5 and won ROY in 2009/10. Fans forget how upbeat everyone was after that first season. Same even goes for Jason Williams and all his creativity and flashy play in 1998/99. But neither player achieved the level many thought they knew was in store for them while other players from the respective drafts surpassed them.

So circling back to my point, as much basketball as BS has seen over 40+ years, he should know better than to rush to judgement. Not about Luka being a good or even great player, but about the KINGS making a mistake. He doesn't know that yet. None of us do.
Don't forget about James Harden was picked #3 in the Tyreke Evans draft. People were saying how great Tyreke Evans was because he was putting up gaudy numbers on a bad team, while Harden was having a very average rookie season on a good team.

How many people would had predicted Harden would be the one who developed into a Transcendent Super Star, while Tyreke Evans career sputtered?

You simply can not predict who will be the best player in a draft, after one rookie season. Most players take time to develop and once a player is fully developed, these "other" players can surpass the "transcendent" rookie stars in a few season.