Potential Free Agent/Trade/Sign Tracker, '25-'26 Season

[Caccia]

Where do you guys think Trey Lyles stands at this point? He was the only pure power forward left on the team at the end of the season, unless you include Isaac Jones. But a lot of times, he played "small ball" center.

 

[SacTownKid]

Where do you guys think Trey Lyles stands at this point? He was the only pure power forward left on the team at the end of the season, unless you include Isaac Jones. But a lot of times, he played "small ball" center.

Time to let him go. He's not a difference maker. This is where that development comes in and this summer is going to be the chance for the young guys to earn it. Jones plenty of times at various points already should have been taking Lyles' minutes. Hopefully this is Isaacs time to shine. This is why development is so important and why the good teams put resources and time into it. Petrie was always good at it too. As the older soon to be paid player starts heading towards the door, you have the cheaper understudy ready to go. Overpaying for 10th-12th guys on the back end is what bad teams do and it's time to finally stop doing that if you're the Kings.

 

[kingsboi]

An example of what? The Pacers are C average according to those placements, the Cavs being stacked in the frontcourt defensively weren't much better. It's becoming more clear that the key on defense is at G/F and specifically having guards that can play 2-3 positions on defense mainly at POA. The Cavs are kind of what they are and that's not necessarily the greatest at G. Is Domas the right guy for them? Who knows, but on paper you can't come up with a better combo than Mobley and Domas. On either end. That doesn't mean it would necessarily work but right now it sounds like the Cavs defensive frontcourt and Allen in particular is catching some blame for the loss.

teams on paper don't produce real life results. Turner is their anchor. The point of attack defense has another wall to score over if they get past the POA defense. Let's not forget he's led the league in blocks twice as well. Allen and Mobley is an acceptable frontcourt defensive tandem, it's their guards and forwards that did them in

 

[kingsboi]

That would largely depend on the money. If Kuminga tops out at what he's looked like then the Kings prospects moving forward as far as the cap are concerned don't look too great. The Kings almost can't afford the gamble at this point. Especially not until they move some salary off the books. Overpaying for other teams players when you are in the middle of nowhere is what gets teams into trouble. It could be a major win, or a major L depending on what Kuminga is and if the Kings don't start a rebuild for another season or two the Kings probably won't even truly know. Kuminga's better off going to a team that is starting from the ground up, not with where the Kings are at currently. There are too many ways that Kuminga's potential could be further minimized. Is he Harrison Barnes level? Or something more? One thing is for sure, without plenty of shots, he's closer to Barnes so far.

Kuminga is 22 with room to still grow with the young core the Kings do have, should they not be included in a bigger trade down the road. Kings have to overpay anyway for talent and he's one of those guys with juice left, getting away from Curry and Butler will do his development some good.

 

[KayDee55]

Just saw that the Pels might be looking for retooling.
I dont know if the pels do it, but Monk for Herb Jones would give them a scoring ballhandler, which they need, on a good contract, and we get another versatile defender next to keegan and keon.
Straight up trade monk-herb works in the trade machine.
Herb would fit what perry said about defense and toughness, too.

 

[SacTownKid]

Kuminga is 22 with room to still grow with the young core the Kings do have, should they not be included in a bigger trade down the road. Kings have to overpay anyway for talent and he's one of those guys with juice left, getting away from Curry and Butler will do his development some good.

That's why the best way to acquire that kind of talent is likely through the draft, not overpaying on the open market via trade or just cap space. Drafting talent gives teams 4 years of a low cost period of discovery. Paying for what you assume something is or will be is what this team consistently does, and that's gambling in the end. No more gambling unless the money is right. The cost of not being able to do something like this is the downside of the Kings consistently F'ing around when it comes to asset management, development, etc. The Kings are too far in the hole now. If it was something like DeRozan for Kuminga with similar money it wouldn't be the worst thing, but Kuminga would probably just take the QO for that kind of money.

 

[dude12]

Kuminga is interesting but one has to wonder why he constantly fell out of the rotation. Does Kuminga see himself as a DDR and is a ball stopper? Don’t think that is what Perry is looking for.

 

[KayDee55]

Kuminga is interesting but one has to wonder why he constantly fell out of the rotation. Does Kuminga see himself as a DDR and is a ball stopper? Don’t think that is what Perry is looking for.

Because he didn't buy into the system, which only hurt his team.
He has to be the system and while there are players that warrant building the whole system around them - he is far away from being one of those

 

[iowamcnabb]

This team building stuff is pretty tricky. The more I think about it I’ve sorta circled back to the idea of Andrew Wiggins for Deebo. The Heat need more scoring and might have enough defense to cover for Deebo and the Kings need length and at least the possibility of defense. The other angle here is what happens if we build a defensive team around Lavine and Sabonis and it kinda works? Say 44-46 wins? At that point, maybe the kings decide to take a swing for a number one option and they would need tradable contracts to match salaries in a big deal. Sure you could unload Lavine, but what if he puts up 23 points on great shooting splits again? If you trade for Wiggins you would have nearly 50 million in contracts (between Monk and Andrew) to trade for a big piece after next season. Something to think about

 

[SacTownKid]

This team building stuff is pretty tricky. The more I think about it I’ve sorta circled back to the idea of Andrew Wiggins for Deebo. The Heat need more scoring and might have enough defense to cover for Deebo and the Kings need length and at least the possibility of defense. The other angle here is what happens if we build a defensive team around Lavine and Sabonis and it kinda works? Say 44-46 wins? At that point, maybe the kings decide to take a swing for a number one option and they would need tradable contracts to match salaries in a big deal. Sure you could unload Lavine, but what if he puts up 23 points on great shooting splits again? If you trade for Wiggins you would have nearly 50 million in contracts (between Monk and Andrew) to trade for a big piece after next season. Something to think about

If the team is defense first it might overachieve at worst. Building teams based on scoring is minus for the end of all time.

 

[Warhawk]

That's why the best way to acquire that kind of talent is likely through the draft, not overpaying on the open market via trade or just cap space. Drafting talent gives teams 4 years of a low cost period of discovery. Paying for what you assume something is or will be is what this team consistently does, and that's gambling in the end. No more gambling unless the money is right. The cost of not being able to do something like this is the downside of the Kings consistently F'ing around when it comes to asset management, development, etc. The Kings are too far in the hole now. If it was something like DeRozan for Kuminga with similar money it wouldn't be the worst thing, but Kuminga would probably just take the QO for that kind of money.

The draft is indeed often great for getting lower cost talent, the problem is they have no NBA experience and no guarantee (except for perhaps a select few) that they will turn into anything more than a bench player, if that. We've had two top-2 picks in Sacramento and ended up with Pervis and Bagley. So, I guess it was fantastic that we had a low cost "period of discovery" - the problem is we discovered that they were horrible picks in retrospect.

At least with NBA-proven talent you somewhat know what you are getting in terms of a player. The "fit" may not work out, but at least you have an idea of what they can do against this level of competition.

The draft is a much bigger gamble most of the time.

Of course, I am not accounting for advancing age/injuries in this reply. That's typically the biggest gamble. A bet on proven NBA talent is better than a bet on a non-"franchise" level college player, but even then you don't really "know" most of the time....

 

[hrdboild]

The draft is indeed often great for getting lower cost talent, the problem is they have no NBA experience and no guarantee (except for perhaps a select few) that they will turn into anything more than a bench player, if that. We've had two top-2 picks in Sacramento and ended up with Pervis and Bagley. So, I guess it was fantastic that we had a low cost "period of discovery" - the problem is we discovered that they were horrible picks in retrospect.

At least with NBA-proven talent you somewhat know what you are getting in terms of a player. The "fit" may not work out, but at least you have an idea of what they can do against this level of competition.

The draft is a much bigger gamble most of the time.

Of course, I am not accounting for advancing age/injuries in this reply. That's typically the biggest gamble. A bet on proven NBA talent is better than a bet on a non-"franchise" level college player, but even then you don't really "know" most of the time....

The trouble is, once we know who a player is at the NBA level so do the other 29 teams and most of them can outbid us when you factor in that if the offers are equal most players will go to a team in a bigger market or a state with lower income tax.

 

[Joshyjosh31]

This team building stuff is pretty tricky. The more I think about it I’ve sorta circled back to the idea of Andrew Wiggins for Deebo. The Heat need more scoring and might have enough defense to cover for Deebo and the Kings need length and at least the possibility of defense. The other angle here is what happens if we build a defensive team around Lavine and Sabonis and it kinda works? Say 44-46 wins? At that point, maybe the kings decide to take a swing for a number one option and they would need tradable contracts to match salaries in a big deal. Sure you could unload Lavine, but what if he puts up 23 points on great shooting splits again? If you trade for Wiggins you would have nearly 50 million in contracts (between Monk and Andrew) to trade for a big piece after next season. Something to think about

Lavine as of now is probably our number one scorer next year he shouldn’t be trade I liked a DD for Wiggins trade as well. Keegan and Wiggins is a great defensive tandem would still need a pg though

 

[SacTownKid]

The draft is indeed often great for getting lower cost talent, the problem is they have no NBA experience and no guarantee (except for perhaps a select few) that they will turn into anything more than a bench player, if that. We've had two top-2 picks in Sacramento and ended up with Pervis and Bagley. So, I guess it was fantastic that we had a low cost "period of discovery" - the problem is we discovered that they were horrible picks in retrospect.

At least with NBA-proven talent you somewhat know what you are getting in terms of a player. The "fit" may not work out, but at least you have an idea of what they can do against this level of competition.

The draft is a much bigger gamble most of the time.

Of course, I am not accounting for advancing age/injuries in this reply. That's typically the biggest gamble. A bet on proven NBA talent is better than a bet on a non-"franchise" level college player, but even then you don't really "know" most of the time....

And you're likely paying for it too. For a team like the Kings or any franchise that tends to have to overpay in almost all facets development is vastly more important than just purely scouting and drafting players. It's also better to whiff on a lower cost rookie contract than a massively overpaid "known" player. The costs of the gamble in a draft are negligible by comparison. If it doesn't work, no real unattachable strings.

 

[Warhawk]

And you're likely paying for it too. For a team like the Kings or any franchise that tends to have to overpay in almost all facets development is vastly more important than just purely scouting and drafting players. It's also better to whiff on a lower cost rookie contract than a massively overpaid "known" player. The costs of the gamble in a draft are negligible by comparison. If it doesn't work, no real unattachable strings.

By all means, let's keep whiffing on $7 million a year, year after year, instead of picking up one good player at $25 million. Makes total sense.

I'm not saying don't use your picks wisely. If we can get a Murray or a Hali, by all means, do so.

I'm saying that the cost-benefit likely doesn't seem to play out in our favor as often as you seem to think it does. I'd rather trade for a Webber and a Bibby and an Artest and sign a Vlade than keep drafting a Pervis and a Bagley.

Tanking for a dumptruck load of picks may get you a good player on sheer number of picks after a while. But you've wasted millions upon millions on players that don't help you (and many are not even NBA-worthy players) and also wasted years hoping that you can find just one real star.

 

[Warhawk]

The trouble is, once we know who a player is at the NBA level so do the other 29 teams and most of them can outbid us when you factor in that if the offers are equal most players will go to a team in a bigger market or a state with lower income tax.

Sure, it can. But I'd rather overspend for a quality NBA player than waste years and years (and the associated millions upon millions of dollars) hoping just one of our picks plays out to be as good as that one player.

 

[Spike]

Sure, it can. But I'd rather overspend for a quality NBA player than waste years and years (and the associated millions upon millions of dollars) hoping just one of our picks plays out to be as good as that one player.

 

[SacTownKid]

By all means, let's keep whiffing on $7 million a year, year after year, instead of picking up one good player at $25 million. Makes total sense.

I'm not saying don't use your picks wisely. If we can get a Murray or a Hali, by all means, do so.

I'm saying that the cost-benefit likely doesn't seem to play out in our favor as often as you seem to think it does. I'd rather trade for a Webber and a Bibby and an Artest and sign a Vlade than keep drafting a Pervis and a Bagley.

Tanking for a dumptruck load of picks may get you a good player on sheer number of picks after a while. But you've wasted millions upon millions on players that don't help you (and many are not even NBA-worthy players) and also wasted years hoping that you can find just one real star.

Haha, obviously you don't want to be stuck on anything but yeah, if the out is that easy, yes, do it. Getting stuck is the issue. If you can trade for a Webber or Artest fine, but that is NOT the norm. Clearly. And guess what, most often times to accumulate the assets to trade for that you have to draft it. Trading for picks is... meh. It's what you do with them and how you develop them that's the trick.

 

[Warhawk]

Haha, obviously you don't want to be stuck on anything but yeah, if the out is that easy, yes, do it. Getting stuck is the issue. If you can trade for a Webber or Artest fine, but that is NOT the norm. Clearly. And guess what, most often times to accumulate the assets to trade for that you have to draft it. Trading for picks is... meh. It's what you do with them and how you develop them that's the trick.

It's all a balance. Make smart gambles, not just rolling the dice on possible draft picks in 2031 or whatever.

I'm anti-tank. I'm not necessarily anti-rebuild. There's a difference.

 

[KayDee55]

I would expect perry to go the NY Route.
Fill the roster with defensive minded, hard playing guys, and one or two players that can spearhead a playoff offense.

Defensive minded guys we have:
Keon, Keegan, LaRavia (we need to keep that guy), Devin Carter

You can hide LaVines defensive downsides behind the guys we already have, but you cannot hide Sabonis on Defense. Problem is, there are not more than 5 players in the nba, that we could use to hide Sabonis on defense, and none of them is gettable. Maybe Jarrett Allen, but that wont be easy.
We really need to deal Sabonis for good rim protection, which in turn would help with LaVines deficiencies even better.

I really dont think we are that far away from competing - we won 40 games with everything going wrong for us.

Like Warhawk said, we could rebuild without tanking. With dealing Monk, DeRozan, Sabonis, Valanciunas we could get some pieces, that would make us a defensive menace.

Try to get people like Herb Jones, Thybulle, Jarrett Allen, Timelord, Adams etc.

 

[iowamcnabb]

well that SI news link says we are interested in Jrue. I could be talked into him but what does a trade look like? I’m not giving up first round draft capital given he had a down year and he is signed for 3 more years which could be a good or bad thing depending on how he performs. Is this a Mike Conley situation where he is rapidly declining? Would the Celtics give draft capital? Not sure they would be willing to go that route but they do have two late firsts, maybe they would? I do like him as a mentor to Devin and he could maybe come off the bench in a couple years. If we do this, one of Monk, Devin or Keon would have to go out in a different deal.