Shams Bomb! Keon Ellis and Dennis Schroder traded to Cleveland in 3 team deal. Kings acquire De’Andre Hunter

Warhawk said:
While I agree with everything you said, the team isn’t going to come out and say this is a stopgap move. They would be stupid to say anything like that.

I view it as a move to balance the team makeup a bit by cheaply picking up a distressed asset. If nothing else it helps clear up a logjam at guard a bit.

Not every move has to be a home run. Some can be singles or sacrifice flies.
Click to expand...

Well, the team actually has more or less said this is a stopgap move. Not in so many words, of course, but Perry has called this a "gap year" repeatedly. The front office has communicated that they are uninterested in taking on long-term money. The trade for De'Andre Hunter fits into this particular rationale. To be clear, I don't have a problem with singles; I have a problem with the way the organization has been run since Perry arrived.

If the Kings didn't want to take on long-term money, why did Perry toss the MLE at Dennis Schroder in the first place? If this was supposed to be a "gap year", why hasn't it been used to maximize the development of the young players already on the roster? Why sign 37-year-old Russell Westbrook and create an even bigger logjam that you're just going to have to unjam later? The Kings have been doing everything backwards, and the Hunter deal mostly represents the necessity of fixing poor decisions that were made upon arrival.

The trade balances the team makeup, yes, but only after Perry cluttered up a roster that already required a significant amount of decluttering. It's a huckster's move to make a big ole mess then clean it up and ask for credit. I know Kings fans have been on the cope recently, saying things like "You can find a Keon Ellis anywhere" in anticipation of him being traded, but when his impact stats light up Cleveland's ability to contend out East, it's going to be a lot harder to believe that the Kings did themselves a favor by refusing to play him, depressing his value, and then dumping him as part of a stopgap move that doesn't move the needle of their rebuild.
 
Padrino said:
Well, the team actually has more or less said this is a stopgap move. Not in so many words, of course, but Perry has called this a "gap year" repeatedly. The front office has communicated that they are uninterested in taking on long-term money. The trade for De'Andre Hunter fits into this particular rationale. To be clear, I don't have a problem with singles; I have a problem with the way the organization has been run since Perry arrived.

If the Kings didn't want to take on long-term money, why did Perry toss the MLE at Dennis Schroder in the first place? If this was supposed to be a "gap year", why hasn't it been used to maximize the development of the young players already on the roster? Why sign 37-year-old Russell Westbrook and create an even bigger logjam that you're just going to have to unjam later? The Kings have been doing everything backwards, and the Hunter deal mostly represents the necessity of fixing poor decisions that were made upon arrival.

The trade balances the team makeup, yes, but only after Perry cluttered up a roster that already required a significant amount of decluttering. It's a huckster's move to make a big ole mess then clean it up and ask for credit. I know Kings fans have been on the cope recently, saying things like "You can find a Keon Ellis anywhere" in anticipation of him being traded, but when his impact stats light up Cleveland's ability to contend out East, it's going to be a lot harder to believe that the Kings did themselves a favor by refusing to play him, depressing his value, and then dumping him as part of a stopgap move that doesn't move the needle of their rebuild.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all this.

I’m not giving him credit on balance. But if he’s cheaply balancing out the roster a bit, even for the short term, I am not going to hammer him for it. At least he’s cleaning up his own mess.

Perhaps Dennis was the price to finally convince Vivek to go through a rebuild?
 
dude12 said:
Entertaining to read the last 4-5 pages.
I think the biggest thing about the deal is that when we are supposedly in a 5 year window of building, most were not expecting to acquire a vet who is 28. Whether Hunter still has juice left, his shooting is definitely down this year, is secondary to what teams would usually do in a rebuilding window, which is getting younger assets/picks.

The balancing of roster, length , getting rid of Schroder, etc is fine, but this surely doesn’t seem to fit a rebuild.
Click to expand...
For better or worse the Kings appear to be in “we want cap space in the summer of 2027 mode”.
 
Padrino said:
Well, the team actually has more or less said this is a stopgap move. Not in so many words, of course, but Perry has called this a "gap year" repeatedly. The front office has communicated that they are uninterested in taking on long-term money. The trade for De'Andre Hunter fits into this particular rationale. To be clear, I don't have a problem with singles; I have a problem with the way the organization has been run since Perry arrived.

If the Kings didn't want to take on long-term money, why did Perry toss the MLE at Dennis Schroder in the first place? If this was supposed to be a "gap year", why hasn't it been used to maximize the development of the young players already on the roster? Why sign 37-year-old Russell Westbrook and create an even bigger logjam that you're just going to have to unjam later? The Kings have been doing everything backwards, and the Hunter deal mostly represents the necessity of fixing poor decisions that were made upon arrival.

The trade balances the team makeup, yes, but only after Perry cluttered up a roster that already required a significant amount of decluttering. It's a huckster's move to make a big ole mess then clean it up and ask for credit. I know Kings fans have been on the cope recently, saying things like "You can find a Keon Ellis anywhere" in anticipation of him being traded, but when his impact stats light up Cleveland's ability to contend out East, it's going to be a lot harder to believe that the Kings did themselves a favor by refusing to play him, depressing his value, and then dumping him as part of a stopgap move that doesn't move the needle of their rebuild.
Click to expand...
Remember the Kings had guards but didn’t really have a point guard.

Not one of

Ellis, Monk, LaVine, Deebo, Carter, Clifford were actual point guards.

If you were going to move Vivek (and yes managing Vivek does matter) you had to first prove the Kings were not just missing a point guard. The best path forward is not always a straight line.
 
sactowndog said:
Remember the Kings had guards but didn’t really have a point guard.

Not one of

Ellis, Monk, LaVine, Deebo, Carter, Clifford were actual point guards.

If you were going to move Vivek (and yes managing Vivek does matter) you had to first prove the Kings were not just missing a point guard. The best path forward is not always a straight line.
Click to expand...

I don't care about Vivek-related hypotheticals. There's nothing we can prove there, and nothing worth arguing over. Here are the facts of the case: Scott Perry made the Kings' guard glut worse in the off-season by adding not one but two over-the-hill point guards, and now he's digging himself out of the mess he made of his own roster. You have some strange personal vendetta against Monte McNair that you air out in damn near every single thread here at KF.com, regardless of relevance, but you're happy to bend over backwards to excuse Perry's mismanagement of the team in year one.

It should be telling, by the way, that Kings fans have to talk themselves into ever more outlandish hypotheticals to convince themselves that what their eyes are seeing is anything more than just bad management. He's stealth tanking! He's covertly managed to convince Vivek to start a rebuild by sabotaging his own team! He's mandated all these old vets be played heavy minutes so he can flip them for future firsts! Come on now. This isn't four-dimensional chess that's happening in Sacramento. It's just bad management. Perry's got time to build a winner here. Hell, there's several days before the trade deadline, and he might yet have a move up his sleeve that truly helps this franchise kickstart a rebuild. But for the moment, can we not just call a spade a spade? Nearly everything Scott Perry has done since last year's draft has been questionable, at best, and absolutely ass-backwards, at worst.

In short, I'm waiting to be impressed. And frankly, I'm hoping to be impressed. I don't relish the Kings collapsing into a league-wide laughingstock again. But I see a whole lot of rationalizing amongst Kings fans this season while smart basketball minds from outside the Sacramento bubble look on with a mix of bewilderment and revulsion at what's happening with this franchise. This is not an organization that is being run well. That can change, but for now, and once again, the spade is... just a spade.
 
Padrino said:
I don't care about Vivek-related hypotheticals. There's nothing we can prove there, and nothing worth arguing over. Here are the facts of the case: Scott Perry made the Kings' guard glut worse in the off-season by adding not one but two over-the-hill point guards, and now he's digging himself out of the mess he made of his own roster. You have some strange personal vendetta against Monte McNair that you air out in damn near every single thread here at KF.com, regardless of relevance, but you're happy to bend over backwards to excuse Perry's mismanagement of the team in year one.

It should be telling, by the way, that Kings fans have to talk themselves into ever more outlandish hypotheticals to convince themselves that what their eyes are seeing is anything more than just bad management. He's stealth tanking! He's covertly managed to convince Vivek to start a rebuild by sabotaging his own team! He's mandated all these old vets be played heavy minutes so he can flip them for future firsts! Come on now. This isn't four-dimensional chess that's happening in Sacramento. It's just bad management. Perry's got time to build a winner here. Hell, there's several days before the trade deadline, and he might yet have a move up his sleeve that truly helps this franchise kickstart a rebuild. But for the moment, can we not just call a spade a spade? Nearly everything Scott Perry has done since last year's draft has been questionable, at best, and absolutely ass-backwards, at worst.

In short, I'm waiting to be impressed. And frankly, I'm hoping to be impressed. I don't relish the Kings collapsing into a league-wide laughingstock again. But I see a whole lot of rationalizing amongst Kings fans this season while smart basketball minds from outside the Sacramento bubble look on with a mix of bewilderment and revulsion at what's happening with this franchise. This is not an organization that is being run well. That can change, but for now, and once again, the spade is... just a spade.
Click to expand...
Everyone on this board wants to excuse Monte for not managing Vivek. Seems like it or not Vivek is a factor that has to be managed.
 
Boy, what a difference to read reactions here and then read cavs fans reactions over there. Nice to see that other teams fans have caught on to the whole “kangz” thing.
 
sactowndog said:
Everyone on this board wants to excuse Monte for not managing Vivek. Seems like it or not Vivek is a factor that has to be managed.
Click to expand...

This is so terribly convenient for you, too, isn't it? Because it's an argument for which nobody can provide refutation. We don't really know that Monte was unsuccessful at "managing Vivek", but we'd never know if he was, either. So you get to make the faux authoritative claim that Monte was a terrible GM because he couldn't "manage Vivek", and Scott Perry is a better GM because he can, even though there's no proof to support such a claim.

So instead, I'm sticking to the facts. We do know that Monte McNair was under directive to win now, and he managed to produce the first two winning seasons the Kings have experienced since 2006, as well as their first playoff appearance in that span, while Scott Perry somehow made the team older and slower and is on the precipice of one of the most futile seasons in Sacramento Kings history. That it will potentially produce a top-5 pick is the only solace to take away from this season, but it's not as if Perry has managed to accomplish anything that any other incompetent organization hasn't managed to accomplish on their way to a bottom-tier finish.
 
Perry should have never of signed schroder and we lost a pick because of it and instead we shipped Keon out for a longer contract and didn’t get any 2nd in return for giving cavs cap relief. It is a clear failure by Perry. Do not let kings team mouthpieces tell you otherwise
 
Padrino said:
I don't care about Vivek-related hypotheticals. There's nothing we can prove there, and nothing worth arguing over. Here are the facts of the case: Scott Perry made the Kings' guard glut worse in the off-season by adding not one but two over-the-hill point guards, and now he's digging himself out of the mess he made of his own roster. You have some strange personal vendetta against Monte McNair that you air out in damn near every single thread here at KF.com, regardless of relevance, but you're happy to bend over backwards to excuse Perry's mismanagement of the team in year one.

It should be telling, by the way, that Kings fans have to talk themselves into ever more outlandish hypotheticals to convince themselves that what their eyes are seeing is anything more than just bad management. He's stealth tanking! He's covertly managed to convince Vivek to start a rebuild by sabotaging his own team! He's mandated all these old vets be played heavy minutes so he can flip them for future firsts! Come on now. This isn't four-dimensional chess that's happening in Sacramento. It's just bad management. Perry's got time to build a winner here. Hell, there's several days before the trade deadline, and he might yet have a move up his sleeve that truly helps this franchise kickstart a rebuild. But for the moment, can we not just call a spade a spade? Nearly everything Scott Perry has done since last year's draft has been questionable, at best, and absolutely ass-backwards, at worst.

In short, I'm waiting to be impressed. And frankly, I'm hoping to be impressed. I don't relish the Kings collapsing into a league-wide laughingstock again. But I see a whole lot of rationalizing amongst Kings fans this season while smart basketball minds from outside the Sacramento bubble look on with a mix of bewilderment and revulsion at what's happening with this franchise. This is not an organization that is being run well. That can change, but for now, and once again, the spade is... just a spade.
Click to expand...

Hes proving he doesn't care about properly evaluating how our team is actually running; he cares about his personal vendetta against Monte and is willing to look past a very poor start from Perry to prop up that agenda.

This Hunter deal is very strange. Again, in a vacuum, its pretty decent value for us. But it directly contradicts a team heading into a rebuild that should be looking to get younger and shedding salary when we can. But now theres reports we like him as a longterm fit next to Keegan? So is he going to be an issue to blocking a Wilson, Booker, AJ?

If we trade derozan, trade Monk, buyout russ and start playing Nique and Carter huge minutes, you can sort of buy the fact that maybe we tried to buy-low on a wing we like to add to our core, even at 28. Extremely dubious of that though, this smells like we are going to try and quick turn around next season and attempt to be good again
 
I mean this trade does accomplish one of the things our wonderful GM said he was set out to do, and that is adding length. This trade doesn't change our future at all when it comes to rebuilding, besides contracts. Just a filler trade, smoke and mirrors. Atleast younger guys get PT
 
iowamcnabb said:
We didn’t want to sign Keon, if we did we just would have extended him or made him restricted. Fans can disagree with the team assessment of Keon but they could have kept him if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
I’ve always liked Keon, but we don’t know what happened in the back room contract discussions. Also, right or wrong (most likely wrong), both Mike Brown and Christie refused to play him consistent minutes.

Maybe Perry did like Keon in the summer (which seems the rumor), but only valued him at $6-8 million per year on a 2 year deal, while his reps were asking for 3 years at $12+ mil per year? At that point, the writing is on the wall for both player and team. He was going to be dealt before the trade deadline.

We will see if this works out in the end, but a deal for essentially Keon (who’s going to be a free agent) for Hunter seems like a fair deal to me.
 
The_Jamal said:
Hes proving he doesn't care about properly evaluating how our team is actually running; he cares about his personal vendetta against Monte and is willing to look past a very poor start from Perry to prop up that agenda.

This Hunter deal is very strange. Again, in a vacuum, its pretty decent value for us. But it directly contradicts a team heading into a rebuild that should be looking to get younger and shedding salary when we can. But now theres reports we like him as a longterm fit next to Keegan? So is he going to be an issue to blocking a Wilson, Booker, AJ?

If we trade derozan, trade Monk, buyout russ and start playing Nique and Carter huge minutes, you can sort of buy the fact that maybe we tried to buy-low on a wing we like to add to our core, even at 28. Extremely dubious of that though, this smells like we are going to try and quick turn around next season and attempt to be good again
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it just be the Kangziest thing ever if this team ended up with the lottery luck necessary to draft AJ Dybantsa, and then stuck him on the bench behind "long-term piece" De'Andre Hunter? 🤣

In all seriousness, you're one of a handful of posters around here I can count on to understand the importance of process. And I just can't understand this deal at all from the perspective of developing an intentional process that emphasizes the need to get younger and more talented. Divorced from further deadline trades, it has the unfortunate stink of the "strategy" we've seen from a variety of GMs in the Vivek era, lurching from one mid-level move to the next with nary a thought for how it's all going to cohere together.

I do agree that there are absolutely ways to follow-up this deal that can make it make some sort of sense, but it's hard not to feel as if it's a precursor to the impatient turnaround attempt that many of us expect of this franchise. At this point, I'm just clinging to Perry's stupid motivational Tweets and his insistence that he intends to take his time to build a sustainable winner. But I'm also not an idiot, and a De'Andre Hunter acquisition ain't it if the Kings genuinely want to move in the direction of a rebuild. "Cap flexibility" is nice, but what they need are assets, and the boldness to take on the kind of contracts that might help them collect those assets.
 
My initial reaction was disappointment that we lost Keon. He was easily my second favorite player on this team.

He cared on D, he was a willing passer, and he could shoot the 3. You want guys like that on your roster. Kings fumbled his handling. I’ll still watch him on league pass.

At the same time, I believe he was overrated by many Kings fans. I’m hopeful this will be a good trade for us long term. This will at least give me a reason to tune back in if we can dump another vet or 2.
 
Padrino said:
Wouldn't it just be the Kangziest thing ever if this team ended up with the lottery luck necessary to draft AJ Dybantsa, and then stuck him on the bench behind "long-term piece" De'Andre Hunter? 🤣

In all seriousness, you're one of a handful of posters around here I can count on to understand the importance of process. And I just can't understand this deal at all from the perspective of developing an intentional process that emphasizes the need to get younger and more talented. Divorced from further deadline trades, it has the unfortunate stink of the "strategy" we've seen from a variety of GMs in the Vivek era, lurching from one mid-level move to the next with nary a thought for how it's all going to cohere together.

I do agree that there are absolutely ways to follow-up this deal that can make it make some sort of sense, but it's hard not to feel as if it's a precursor to the impatient turnaround attempt that many of us expect of this franchise. At this point, I'm just clinging to Perry's stupid motivational Tweets and his insistence that he intends to take his time to build a sustainable winner. But I'm also not an idiot, and a De'Andre Hunter acquisition ain't it if the Kings genuinely want to move in the direction of a rebuild. "Cap flexibility" is nice, but what they need are assets, and the boldness to take on the kind of contracts that might help them collect those assets.
Click to expand...
I personally like this quote from John Hollinger’s assessment of the trade:

As ever with Sacramento trades, the disappointment is less about the specific names involved than the overarching lack of strategy or forethought beyond next Tuesday….This feels less like an orderly rebuild than an ongoing game of throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping it randomly takes the form of a Picasso.
 
Good to see Keon is excited to be in Cleveland. The Cleveland fans are excited from what I am reading. And the kings are still the most ridiculous franchise in all of sports.

I think the kings could pull a couple posters from here and they could get this team pointed in the right direction better than any of the so called experts they have hired in the last decade.
 
Last edited:
Padrino said:
This is so terribly convenient for you, too, isn't it? Because it's an argument for which nobody can provide refutation. We don't really know that Monte was unsuccessful at "managing Vivek", but we'd never know if he was, either. So you get to make the faux authoritative claim that Monte was a terrible GM because he couldn't "manage Vivek", and Scott Perry is a better GM because he can, even though there's no proof to support such a claim.

So instead, I'm sticking to the facts. We do know that Monte McNair was under directive to win now, and he managed to produce the first two winning seasons the Kings have experienced since 2006, as well as their first playoff appearance in that span, while Scott Perry somehow made the team older and slower and is on the precipice of one of the most futile seasons in Sacramento Kings history. That it will potentially produce a top-5 pick is the only solace to take away from this season, but it's not as if Perry has managed to accomplish anything that any other incompetent organization hasn't managed to accomplish on their way to a bottom-tier finish.
Click to expand...
Most of the players on this team were acquired and given a contract under Monte. This unbalanced cluster is mostly laid at his feet.

Whether Scott knew Dennis was a disaster and did a Vivek rope-a-dope or not remains to be seen. We shall see what his other moves bring about but so far I like his moves in terms of draft picks and moving up for Clifford.

What we do know is this team is finally off their play-in hopeless treadmill track and for that I am grateful.
 
TaxMan said:
I personally like this quote from John Hollinger’s assessment of the trade:

As ever with Sacramento trades, the disappointment is less about the specific names involved than the overarching lack of strategy or forethought beyond next Tuesday….This feels less like an orderly rebuild than an ongoing game of throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping it randomly takes the form of a Picasso.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't really have a ton of respect for Hollinger's individual player analysis, but at the very least, he's a mind who values process, and I think his metaphor here is an apt one. We'll see if Perry has further follow up that illustrates a plan cohering in a meaningful way, or if it's all just throwing spaghetti at the wall.
 
Dennis on his Instagram:

CLEVELAND.
LFG!

What it must feel like to go from the dregs of the sporting world to actual competence.

On the other hand, hunter has gotta be in despair, and that’s not hyperbole. From Rudy gay welcoming new players with a “welcome to hell” to Chris Webber on his flight to Sacramento crying and telling his dad he can’t do this. And those bad kings teams were better than this one! I can’t even imagine the mental state of the players on this sorry squad.
 
Marks said the Kings are 9000 dollars below the luxury tax for next year with 11 rostered players. Cutting Deebo if he isn’t traded will give them some room but likely more deals would need to be made and he expects them to be.
 
sactowndog said:
What we do know is this team is finally off their play-in hopeless treadmill track and for that I am grateful.
Click to expand...

On this point we do not disagree. However, it doesn't take a genius to lose a sh*tload of games. Scott Perry needs to illustrate that he possesses the competence necessary to get his priorities in place for a rebuild. He had a good draft day last year, but his work in free agency and on the trade block suggests a GM out of his depth thus far. In no world should the Sacramento Kings of 2025-2026 have become older, slower, with less upside, and less room for development. Monte McNair left the Kings in a crummy state, particularly after trading De'Aaron Fox for Zach LaVine. Scott Perry largely made it worse, and you're not convincing me that there's some sort of high-level "rope a dope" happening behind the scenes. The man's trying to figure out how to clean up his off-season mess, and I hope he's prepared to start taking some actual steps forward.
 
Padrino said:
Wouldn't it just be the Kangziest thing ever if this team ended up with the lottery luck necessary to draft AJ Dybantsa, and then stuck him on the bench behind "long-term piece" De'Andre Hunter? 🤣

In all seriousness, you're one of a handful of posters around here I can count on to understand the importance of process. And I just can't understand this deal at all from the perspective of developing an intentional process that emphasizes the need to get younger and more talented. Divorced from further deadline trades, it has the unfortunate stink of the "strategy" we've seen from a variety of GMs in the Vivek era, lurching from one mid-level move to the next with nary a thought for how it's all going to cohere together.

I do agree that there are absolutely ways to follow-up this deal that can make it make some sort of sense, but it's hard not to feel as if it's a precursor to the impatient turnaround attempt that many of us expect of this franchise. At this point, I'm just clinging to Perry's stupid motivational Tweets and his insistence that he intends to take his time to build a sustainable winner. But I'm also not an idiot, and a De'Andre Hunter acquisition ain't it if the Kings genuinely want to move in the direction of a rebuild. "Cap flexibility" is nice, but what they need are assets, and the boldness to take on the kind of contracts that might help them collect those assets.
Click to expand...
RE: the bolded part: Then why don't we just wait a few days until the trade deadline to see if something like that takes place before skewering everyone and everything over what seems to be a preliminary/minor roster-balancing move?

I get it. You want clarity. And as I think you are one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and respected posters here, I agree with your overall opinion in general.

But I also think you really aren't going to get what you are looking for on this particular move. Nobody is going to come out and say, you know, "getting Dennis was really stupid on my part" (or, as some think is more likely, "getting Dennis was the price we had to pay to finally convince Vivek to actually rebuild"). Nobody will say "Hunter is our backup plan for the rest of this year and then we're using him as an expiring." You as much as anyone should understand that those kinds of statements just aren't happening.

Obtaining a "distressed asset" big at the cost we paid (assuming Keon was already gone for whatever reason, which seems logical) appears to be pretty much a break even or slightly beneficial move on our part to free up PT for some guards and give a little boost to our frontcourt depth. It appears by all accounts he's not going to mess up our drive for the worst record in the league, which is what everyone here is clamoring for. We may have just found Golden State to be impossible to deal with so we pivoted for some shorter-term help in roster balancing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I think this move is great (heck, or even "good"?). I think it is likely neutral to slightly beneficial, just from a roster balance standpoint if nothing else.

But you're the one who keeps harping that trades are so difficult to make now, with the focus on not giving up FRP and keeping within budget caps, etc., etc. So, a minor trade to get longer and relieve a logjam in the backcourt may be just that (instead of some final keystroke to solving all our ills).
 
Last edited:
Padrino said:
On this point we do not disagree. However, it doesn't take a genius to lose a sh*tload of games. Scott Perry needs to illustrate that he possesses the competence necessary to get his priorities in place for a rebuild. He had a good draft day last year, but his work in free agency and on the trade block suggests a GM out of his depth thus far. In no world should the Sacramento Kings of 2025-2026 have become older, slower, with less upside, and less room for development. Monte McNair left the Kings in a crummy state, particularly after trading De'Aaron Fox for Zach LaVine. Scott Perry largely made it worse, and you're not convincing me that there's some sort of high-level "rope a dope" happening behind the scenes. The man's trying to figure out how to clean up his off-season mess, and I hope he's prepared to start taking some actual steps forward.
Click to expand...

Also, I think Scott had every intention of competing this year. You dont sign 32 year old Dennis, bring in 37 year old Russ, sign 28 year old Drew Eubanks to be the backup C if youre not trying to compete. 2 key injuries to Keegan and Domas+ our team just being flat out bad is why we have the league worst record. Absolutely was not by design
 
Padrino said:
Indeed. There is a great deal of desire within the fanbase for something to happen, and would you look at that? Something just happened! I understand the impulse for many to celebrate simply because the Kings are not sitting idly at the trade deadline. It's good that the front office is making their calls and exploring all kinds of possibilities. In a vacuum, however, this trade does absolutely nothing for the issue of clarity. What are the Kings doing? That's what I want to know. And right now, there's no answer to this question, based on, as you noted, the unfathomable decisions that have been made since Scott Perry was hired.

Perry himself has said he expects it to take some time to turn the Kings into a sustainable winner. That's perfectly fine; I'm all-in for a patient rebuild. But if this trade is part of Perry's plan to turn the Kings into a sustainable winner, it's unclear to me how it assists with that goal. There may be follow up moves that bring us greater clarity, of course, but right now? I don't get it.

De'Andre Hunter is a wing with length. Huzzah! Can you believe it?! A wing with length!! We need one of those!!! Uhm, yeah... sure? Nearly a full teardown is what the Kings actually need, and Hunter is 28, oft-injured, has regressed as a shooter this season, has never really been a plus-defender despite his reputation, but you know what? None of that even matters, because what is the plan into which Hunter figures? Is he expected to be a long-term piece of the puzzle? Probably not. Is he expected to contribute to winning? Well, what's the point of that when Perry is calling for patience and the Kings desperately need to rely on their own lottery odds to do much of the heavy lifting in a rebuild?

So... is De'Andre Hunter just a stopgap then? If so, then the trade's only purpose was to clear up a guard logjam of Perry's own making. Necessary, perhaps, but hardly worth celebrating. Again, I understand the impulse for Kings fans to look at this trade and say, "Well, the Kings got a good player at a position of need, so it's a good trade." But that view just ignores so much important context.

I mean, somehow, the Kings are sending out a second rounder in this deal! Does that pick mean sh*t? No, not really. But at a time when the Kings need to be scrambling for youth and every future draft pick they can get their hands on, they just should not be in the business of trading younger-for-older and giving up picks of any kind. It's a ho-hum deal, meant to begin the process of unwinding the mistakes of the off-season while not committing the Kings to long-term money. Keon Ellis becomes a sacrifice Perry needed to make in order to revise his own plan. Not particularly auspicious, that.
Click to expand...

My money is on Ranadive pushing to expedite his perception of having a chance for the post season. In other words, another short cut that many of us have been suspecting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top