State of the Kings Post Deadline Edition
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
I actually think the Kings improved significantly with the acquisitions. Not my preferred direction, but so be it.
Three 6'3+ guards who can drive, facilitate, shoot (decently enough), and play two way ball in Fox, Hali, and Wright.
Buddy moves to the SF spot the majority of the time. Barnes moves to the 4 spot the majority of the time.
Got a jumbo wing defender in Harkless--Kings go big, if Buddy does Buddy things and need size on the wing. Got bench scoring in Davis + Wright. Got an energy big in Silva. Bags comes back and becomes an all offense, no defense bench big.
Again, not my preferred direction. But these moves were cost-efficient. Kings are going to be in the playoff mix.
Three 6'3+ guards who can drive, facilitate, shoot (decently enough), and play two way ball in Fox, Hali, and Wright.
Buddy moves to the SF spot the majority of the time. Barnes moves to the 4 spot the majority of the time.
Got a jumbo wing defender in Harkless--Kings go big, if Buddy does Buddy things and need size on the wing. Got bench scoring in Davis + Wright. Got an energy big in Silva. Bags comes back and becomes an all offense, no defense bench big.
Again, not my preferred direction. But these moves were cost-efficient. Kings are going to be in the playoff mix.
Well the Kings will have to win some games with what they have. I'm not convinced they have enough talent to make the Playoffs. The Kings play in last seasons "Bubble" is still clear in my mind.
Monte did add some scrappy defenders to the bench. Silva is a nice story of a skinny kid coming out of Africa with a NBA dream. Wright, Harkless, Davis and Silva hopefully have a little "Dog" in them.
Monte did add some scrappy defenders to the bench. Silva is a nice story of a skinny kid coming out of Africa with a NBA dream. Wright, Harkless, Davis and Silva hopefully have a little "Dog" in them.
Last edited:
Yep. This death lineup has been one of the best in the league but the bench has been so horrible for most of the year that we’ve been too far behind for it to even matter.
Some grouping of
Whiteside/Metu/
Harkless/Metu/Woodard
James/DQJ/Woodard
Davis/James/Guy
Wright/Guy/
isnt exactly gonna blow the socks off of anyone but it’s also probably not going to get cooked so bad that your team goes down by ten in a brief two minute span.
Some grouping of
Whiteside/Metu/
Harkless/Metu/Woodard
James/DQJ/Woodard
Davis/James/Guy
Wright/Guy/
isnt exactly gonna blow the socks off of anyone but it’s also probably not going to get cooked so bad that your team goes down by ten in a brief two minute span.
Exactly. I think this was the point - to strengthen the bench & add some toughness without sabotaging the future. Mission Accomplished. (On paper.) Assuming Walton actually plays some of these guys.
The Silva addition is unheralded, but if that kid can learn how to stay aggressive without being a foul magnet - NINE fouls per 36 min (YIKES)! - he could be a keeper...
The Silva addition is unheralded, but if that kid can learn how to stay aggressive without being a foul magnet - NINE fouls per 36 min (YIKES)! - he could be a keeper...
Yeah- I think there are some good combinations off the bench depending on what you are looking for, and you will probably have 12 guys who need to be "ready" at any time and could be in the 9-10 man rotation for any given game.
For instance, if you are playing a big team, your bench guys might be Whiteside, Metu, Harkless, Davis, Wright.
For small ball games, you might run Metu, Harkless, Davis, Wright, Guy.
If Harkless is cooked, Davis isn't that good, or you want a different look you could run DQJ.
I don't think you are going to see much of Woodard, James, or Silva if we are truly trying to make the playoffs.
I don't think Luke is ever going to play more than 9-10 guys a night, but he will likely have 10-12 guys of at least decent NBA quality to choose from any given night, and I think some of the backend rotation guys (Whiteside, Guy, DQJ) might find themselves playing one game and not the next depending on matchup and need. That we have 10-12 guys who don't look lost on an NBA floor is itself an improvement. Prior to the deadline that number was closer to 6-7, given that James is not an NBA level player, DQJ shows only flashes, Belly was checked out, and CoJo was often net negative. That the core 5 won't have to play 38 minutes per night, and that we don't have to worry about trying to find time for Bagley to mess things up, should contribute to a record that is much closer to .500 in and of itself.
I actually think that is what McNair is thinking. He looks at his core 5 and thinks he is got something. If you get reasonable growth from Fox and Hali next season, and resign Holmes you have a good core. Barnes is a nice piece. If you can find a way to upgrade Buddy (and get off is salary) you are starting to really have something. Add in some role players on the bench (I think we will really like Wright), and let everyone grow together, and you may have something.
The toughest part of that is upgrading Buddy. I know some people think that is through the draft, but maybe Monte thinks there is a trade out there when we get deeper into Buddy's contract. Maybe you can package him with Bagley when Bagley is an expiring. If you want to keep Barnes and Holmes to build around Fox and Hali (which I think is reasonable) then this team was too good to tank to the bottom 5. There is just too much talent. I think any effort to soft tank (but holding Barnes and Holmes) is probably no better than 8th or 9th pick territory. So Monte probably looks at it and says "why not got for it?" If we are already likely picking 8-10, why not try for the playoffs? if you get it, awesome, and if not, you are picking 10-12 instead of 8-10. The core you have (Fox, Hali, Barnes, and Holmes) is already too good to just waste the season. So let them play. Let Fox and Hali learn how to play and lead. Let them experience a playoff run or even play in meaningful late season games that have consequence. That is the only way we will get good.
I'm actually struck by how "bad" some of those old Lakers players are at "winning basketball." The Pellies have so much talent, but guys like Ingram are just not winners. You let a guy play meaningless basketball for too many years and he starts to develop bad habits and apathy, no matter how talented he is.
I am not suggesting this is the approach I would have taken. But I see the direction Monte is looking to go. Your chances of tanking to the bottom are small given the existing talent on the roster. So add some guys who will help you be more competitive this year, try to make a run that will probably only cost you 2-3 pick spots, pick up a guy (Wright) who might be part of your core, but otherwise keep your powder dry until a better opportunity presents itself.
For instance, if you are playing a big team, your bench guys might be Whiteside, Metu, Harkless, Davis, Wright.
For small ball games, you might run Metu, Harkless, Davis, Wright, Guy.
If Harkless is cooked, Davis isn't that good, or you want a different look you could run DQJ.
I don't think you are going to see much of Woodard, James, or Silva if we are truly trying to make the playoffs.
I don't think Luke is ever going to play more than 9-10 guys a night, but he will likely have 10-12 guys of at least decent NBA quality to choose from any given night, and I think some of the backend rotation guys (Whiteside, Guy, DQJ) might find themselves playing one game and not the next depending on matchup and need. That we have 10-12 guys who don't look lost on an NBA floor is itself an improvement. Prior to the deadline that number was closer to 6-7, given that James is not an NBA level player, DQJ shows only flashes, Belly was checked out, and CoJo was often net negative. That the core 5 won't have to play 38 minutes per night, and that we don't have to worry about trying to find time for Bagley to mess things up, should contribute to a record that is much closer to .500 in and of itself.
I actually think that is what McNair is thinking. He looks at his core 5 and thinks he is got something. If you get reasonable growth from Fox and Hali next season, and resign Holmes you have a good core. Barnes is a nice piece. If you can find a way to upgrade Buddy (and get off is salary) you are starting to really have something. Add in some role players on the bench (I think we will really like Wright), and let everyone grow together, and you may have something.
The toughest part of that is upgrading Buddy. I know some people think that is through the draft, but maybe Monte thinks there is a trade out there when we get deeper into Buddy's contract. Maybe you can package him with Bagley when Bagley is an expiring. If you want to keep Barnes and Holmes to build around Fox and Hali (which I think is reasonable) then this team was too good to tank to the bottom 5. There is just too much talent. I think any effort to soft tank (but holding Barnes and Holmes) is probably no better than 8th or 9th pick territory. So Monte probably looks at it and says "why not got for it?" If we are already likely picking 8-10, why not try for the playoffs? if you get it, awesome, and if not, you are picking 10-12 instead of 8-10. The core you have (Fox, Hali, Barnes, and Holmes) is already too good to just waste the season. So let them play. Let Fox and Hali learn how to play and lead. Let them experience a playoff run or even play in meaningful late season games that have consequence. That is the only way we will get good.
I'm actually struck by how "bad" some of those old Lakers players are at "winning basketball." The Pellies have so much talent, but guys like Ingram are just not winners. You let a guy play meaningless basketball for too many years and he starts to develop bad habits and apathy, no matter how talented he is.
I am not suggesting this is the approach I would have taken. But I see the direction Monte is looking to go. Your chances of tanking to the bottom are small given the existing talent on the roster. So add some guys who will help you be more competitive this year, try to make a run that will probably only cost you 2-3 pick spots, pick up a guy (Wright) who might be part of your core, but otherwise keep your powder dry until a better opportunity presents itself.
Last edited:
As terrible as Buddy has been for most of the season, his numbers are now pretty darn near identical to supposed "having a great career year" Barnes. Yeah there are differences on defense and so on, but it's not like Harrison was single handedly stopping us from being the worst defensive team in the league. There's nothing in their historical career averages that suggests their production is suddenly going to diverge either, so I find it very strange that people are more than ready to suggest that Barnes is fine remaining as part of the core but Buddy is a must-move, when their salaries are only $2MM different per year and Barnes is a year older. Both guys are hard workers who at times can take over games, but aren't consistent stars and should ideally be at best the third or fourth-best player on the team.
I think for me, it's just the way they play the game that is different. Barnes rarely does something that gets you screaming at the TV. He pretty much stays within himself and his capabilities and helps the team in a few different ways. How many times a game does Buddy do something just completely stupid and uncessessary? He doesn't make anybody around him better. He just dribbles and chucks, dribbles and turns it over, or dribbles and passes it off to a teammate with 3 seconds left on the shot clock so that they can chuck. There is just nothing inspiring about him, other than when he gets on a roll and makes 3's.
I wish he'd just realize he needs to be a spot up shooter and stop trying to create all the time. I have no idea why Walton continues to let him do this game after game.
I wish he'd just realize he needs to be a spot up shooter and stop trying to create all the time. I have no idea why Walton continues to let him do this game after game.
I don't mind Buddy, but I think he and Barnes taking up so much cap together is unworkable. I feel like you can generally pay 4 guys major money before you start getting into trouble capwise. I guess I don't think you can win if two of those players are Barnes and Buddy.
I think Barnes is a better defender. Barnes is less gaffe-prone. Barnes is a higher IQ player who is better at making players around him better (though neither Barnes nor Buddy are strong at this). Barnes better understands his role and seems more willing to accept being a 3rd/4th option than Buddy. Barnes is bigger, and is more of a 3.5 (combo 3/4) while Buddy is a 2.5 (combo 2/3), and I think a big defensively capable 3.5 is more important than a 2.5. And Barnes has a year less on his contract.
So while I like Buddy's shooting, energy, charisma, and effort, I just like Barnes as a long term piece better. And if you commit to Fox, Buddy, Barnes, and Holmes as your 4 big money players you are really capped out, and probably in the 7-10 range of the conference. So I think you have to find someone who uses that $20-22M better than Buddy does, and you've got to find that person before Haliburton needs an extension.
I don't think you need to be in a rush. This team is not a contender next year. Buddy's contract looks way better next year when he has two years left at the deadline, not 3, and his contract declines. If Buddy can restore some more value by playing well, you might be able to package him with an expiring Bagley and a pick to get some team interested. You see if there is a market from teams who are not happy with a wing who is on a second contract and not living up to that contract/team is ready to move on.
I am not saying any of these guys are available right now, but maybe next year someone like Tobias Harris, Brandon Ingram, Khris Middleton, Jerami Grant, Aaron Gordon, Pascal Siakam has worn out their welcome. I think those guys are all generally in the second contract making $15-20M per year, and are a good match for Buddy's contract. If those guys aren't working on their teams and the team is not playing well, maybe they are interested in a Buddy who is playing well and has 2 years left on a declining deal, a chance to see what Bagley can do, and perhaps a future pick. I am just throwing out names of players who fit the mold I'd be interested in- I understand Harris, Middleton, and some others are highly unlikely to be traded to us...
I think Barnes is a better defender. Barnes is less gaffe-prone. Barnes is a higher IQ player who is better at making players around him better (though neither Barnes nor Buddy are strong at this). Barnes better understands his role and seems more willing to accept being a 3rd/4th option than Buddy. Barnes is bigger, and is more of a 3.5 (combo 3/4) while Buddy is a 2.5 (combo 2/3), and I think a big defensively capable 3.5 is more important than a 2.5. And Barnes has a year less on his contract.
So while I like Buddy's shooting, energy, charisma, and effort, I just like Barnes as a long term piece better. And if you commit to Fox, Buddy, Barnes, and Holmes as your 4 big money players you are really capped out, and probably in the 7-10 range of the conference. So I think you have to find someone who uses that $20-22M better than Buddy does, and you've got to find that person before Haliburton needs an extension.
I don't think you need to be in a rush. This team is not a contender next year. Buddy's contract looks way better next year when he has two years left at the deadline, not 3, and his contract declines. If Buddy can restore some more value by playing well, you might be able to package him with an expiring Bagley and a pick to get some team interested. You see if there is a market from teams who are not happy with a wing who is on a second contract and not living up to that contract/team is ready to move on.
I am not saying any of these guys are available right now, but maybe next year someone like Tobias Harris, Brandon Ingram, Khris Middleton, Jerami Grant, Aaron Gordon, Pascal Siakam has worn out their welcome. I think those guys are all generally in the second contract making $15-20M per year, and are a good match for Buddy's contract. If those guys aren't working on their teams and the team is not playing well, maybe they are interested in a Buddy who is playing well and has 2 years left on a declining deal, a chance to see what Bagley can do, and perhaps a future pick. I am just throwing out names of players who fit the mold I'd be interested in- I understand Harris, Middleton, and some others are highly unlikely to be traded to us...
Buddy Hield in March:
36.4 MPG
19.5 PPG
5.3 RPG
4.0 APG (14.5% AST)
61% TS
42% 3pt (11.3 3PT/Game!!!)
120.1 ORtg
20.3% USG
This is the player we thought we were getting with the big contract and it's a drastic difference for him compared to the rest of the season where he was legitimately bad on both ends of the court. Changes quite a bit if the Kings get this version of something close going forward.
certainly this board did 
And people still aren't understanding how much pressure Buddy gets from the defense. A lot of those open looks for Barnes and Haliburton come directly from Buddy drawing as much attention as he does. He draws more pressure than anyone else in pick and roll and guess what, he's making the passes needed to make teams pay when they do.
Your post started off fine, and I can agree that Barnes is more "dependable". But then you just had to descend into hyperbole.
Buddy has averaged more assists than Barnes over his career. He's essentially averaging close to the same Assists and TOs as Barnes this year (3.3/1.8 vs 3.7/1.4), despite the common consensus that Barnes is having a career year while Buddy has been dang near awful for most of the season. This year, Barnes has had 8 games of at least 5 assists while Buddy has had 6. I mean, if you've been watching the game you would know that Buddy finding Holmes on the pick and roll for his push shot is a staple of the offense, and really you can't legitimately criticize Buddy for not moving the ball this year.
The irony is that "nothing inspiring about him" is very much an apt description of Barnes' career prior to this season.
Kings fans: Buddy Hield only puts up points and nothing else. What a one-dimensional player! He doesn't make anybody around him better!
Also Kings fans: Buddy needs to stop trying to create and just be a spot up shooter!
Buddy has averaged more assists than Barnes over his career. He's essentially averaging close to the same Assists and TOs as Barnes this year (3.3/1.8 vs 3.7/1.4), despite the common consensus that Barnes is having a career year while Buddy has been dang near awful for most of the season. This year, Barnes has had 8 games of at least 5 assists while Buddy has had 6. I mean, if you've been watching the game you would know that Buddy finding Holmes on the pick and roll for his push shot is a staple of the offense, and really you can't legitimately criticize Buddy for not moving the ball this year.
The irony is that "nothing inspiring about him" is very much an apt description of Barnes' career prior to this season.
Kings fans: Buddy Hield only puts up points and nothing else. What a one-dimensional player! He doesn't make anybody around him better!
Also Kings fans: Buddy needs to stop trying to create and just be a spot up shooter!
You do realise that 1) Harrison Barnes is averaging a grand total of 1mpg more than Buddy this year, and 2) the Mavs literally gave him to us for Justin Jackson and expiring, retiring Zach Randolph? You're probably fairly new around here but there was no lack of people on this board who thought the Barnes signing was a terrible one.
Barnes is having a career year; Buddy's first half of the season was about as low as you can go for a shooter. I'm not going to base future personnel decisions about who is core and who is not by comparing extremes.
Barnes is having a career year; Buddy's first half of the season was about as low as you can go for a shooter. I'm not going to base future personnel decisions about who is core and who is not by comparing extremes.