State of the Kings Post Deadline Edition

M

mac

All-Star
#61
#61
Telemachus said:
The big difference for me is how they impact the game. When the offense is struggling, Barnes will often get in the post and stop the bleeding. He is also smart about getting to the foul line.
Click to expand...
Hey, something that actually makes sense and isn't hyperbole. I can appreciate where you're coming from and it makes sense to me.

My personal take on it is that while it certainly matters, I don't see it as being of significant importance or difference over the long run. When the offense is struggling, we should be looking to Fox or Hali to create (assuming they are going to be two max players). At the end of the day as things normalize, you would expect Buddy's point production to outmatch Barnes', and on the flip side you could make the argument that Buddy getting hot or raining 3s can also bail out a bad offense.
 
W

Woot!

Starter
#65
#65
mac said:
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.
Click to expand...
Weird argument.

Fact is that HB has led his teams in minutes 5 YEARS IN A ROW and 5 of his 9 years, which tells you something about the esteem in which his coaches have held him. And I imagine a lot of those people who thought HB's signing was terrible would now acknowledge that they were wrong, so....

Let's leave aside HB's relatively good year and Buddy's relatively bad one. Here're some constants: to date, HB, not Buddy, regularly guards the toughest wing player. HB has the FAR more versatile offensive game AND is the more versatile defender, though I think Buddy's added strength has helped there. HB won't chuck the Kings out fo games; Buddy will. And then there's the locker room and leadership stuff, the community and spokesperson stuff.

By all accounts, teams were waaaaay more interested in HB than in Buddy. The real question for Kings' fans is: which player likely represents the greater value to the Kings over the next couple years? For various reasons that don't simply boil down to a head-to-head comparison, but does include it, to me it's pretty obviously HB. Neither of us actually has any say-so on Kings' personnel decisions, but I suspect those who do agree w/me.
 
Last edited:
sactowndog

sactowndog

All-Star
#67
#67
Well if this team is good enough for the playoffs we should know soon enough. This coming week includes back to back games against the Spurs. With both and we might have a chance to be a legit team. Lose both....
 
M

mac

All-Star
#69
#69
Woot! said:
Weird argument.

Fact is that HB has led his teams in minutes 5 YEARS IN A ROW and 5 of his 9 years, which tells you something about the esteem in which his coaches have held him. And I imagine a lot of those people who thought HB's signing was terrible would now acknowledge that they were wrong, so....

Let's leave aside HB's relatively good year and Buddy's relatively bad one. Here're some constants: to date, HB, not Buddy, regularly guards the toughest wing player. HB has the FAR more versatile offensive game AND is the more versatile defender, though I think Buddy's added strength has helped there. HB won't chuck the Kings out fo games; Buddy will. And then there's the locker room and leadership stuff, the community and spokesperson stuff.

By all accounts, teams were waaaaay more interested in HB than in Buddy. The real question for Kings' fans is: which player likely represents the greater value to the Kings over the next couple years? For various reasons that don't simply boil down to a head-to-head comparison, but does include it, to me it's pretty obviously HB. Neither of us actually has any say-so on Kings' personnel decisions, but I suspect those who do agree w/me.
Click to expand...
I just can't understand how you are reaching these conclusions. It's just like the guy talking about HB making everyone better but Buddy not and not even looking into the assist numbers. Now you start reaching into the realm of BS intangibles on a sub-500 team like locker room leadership and community involvement.

So leaving aside this season as you stated: Career averages
PPG (not even accounting for the fact that Barnes averaged 3.5 minutes more than Buddy, something you're so big on) - Buddy: 15.9, Barnes 12
eFG%: Buddy 54.5%, Barnes 50.3%
3P%: Buddy 41%, Barnes 37%
2P%: Buddy 47%, Barnes 48%
FTA/gm: Buddy 0.7, Barnes 2.9
FT%: Buddy 87%, Barnes 80%
Assists/gm: Buddy 2.2, Barnes 1.6

Either your definition of "FAR more versatile offensive game" = 2 free throw attempts more game, Barnes does not have a "FAR more versatile offensive game", or Barnes has the "FAR more versatile offensive game" but it hasn't amounted to diddly squat. You pick.

Barnes is a decent defender but let's not pretend he's some DPOY candidate out there locking down opposing wings. He may not "chuck the Kings out of games", but he has also been more than happy to be Mr Invisible, or has half a career season made you forget that?

Leading one's team in minutes also has a lot to do with what the potential back up is. Here's a thought experiment for you, who have the Kings' back up SF/PFs been for the past 2 years?

I hate that I'm having to sound as if I'm knocking Barnes, because I don't want to. I just think fans like you are looking at a career year by Barnes and a bad start by Hield and refusing to delve deeper into the numbers.

Here's another thought - EVEN if Barnes provides more value to the Kings than Buddy does in terms of individual play, if the market value for Barnes is that much higher than Buddy's then you could make the argument that the team might even be better off trading Barnes to get back more in return.
 
M

mac

All-Star
#70
#70
Rain man said:
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...
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to respond well. I actually don't disagree with anything you've said and I respect your perspective; I too agree that we can't have both Barnes and Buddy here long term.

Here's a follow up question for you though - based on what we currently know about the potential haul we get for trading each player, do you think the team would be better off keeping Barnes and trading Buddy, or keeping Buddy and trading Barnes? I suppose if you think trading Buddy will be more about just dumping salary in order to make room for Hali or something, then keeping Barnes is definitely the better option.
 
kb02

kb02

All-Star
#71
#71
mac said:
Thanks for taking the time to respond well. I actually don't disagree with anything you've said and I respect your perspective; I too agree that we can't have both Barnes and Buddy here long term.

Here's a follow up question for you though - based on what we currently know about the potential haul we get for trading each player, do you think the team would be better off keeping Barnes and trading Buddy, or keeping Buddy and trading Barnes? I suppose if you think trading Buddy will be more about just dumping salary in order to make room for Hali or something, then keeping Barnes is definitely the better option.
Click to expand...
I have been and I still am in favor trading both players. For Buddy, the sooner, the better. For Barnes, for the right price.

For all the stats thrown around, the most important is the Buddy being Buddy stats. Most NBA games are decided within 6 points. Buddy gives away 2 to 10 points per game. You can’t play winning ball when you have someone who gifts the other team that many points—usually during the most critical moments too.
 
M

mac

All-Star
#72
#72
kb02 said:
I have been and I still am in favor trading both players. For Buddy, the sooner, the better. For Barnes, for the right price.

For all the stats thrown around, the most important is the Buddy being Buddy stats. Most NBA games are decided within 6 points. Buddy gives away 2 to 10 points per game. You can’t play winning ball when you have someone who gifts the other team that many points—usually during the most critical moments too.
Click to expand...
Please, I beg you, show me the stats that back up what you're saying. Yes he makes these dumb turnovers that stand out, but at the end of the day, his TOs are not significantly higher than Barnes'. If gifting points is your concern, Fox also gives up at least two fast break layups a game when he drives into traffic and gets stripped. Or how about missed FTs etc. Momentum is a thing but it is not the only thing that decides outcomes of a game. If all that mattered were crunch time then should we only look at or track stats for everyone in the last two minutes of close games?

This boils down to cognitive bias of sorts. You see Buddy do dumb things like dribble off his foot or fumble the ball, and you think ah because those were dumb they must be worse than any other kind of turnover, like getting stripped or throwing a bad pass. The reality is it doesn't matter whether you're getting the ball stripped by a DPOY twice a game, or dribbling the ball off your foot twice a game, if at the end of the day you still have two turnovers. If the averages equate, it really doesn't matter how it happens, and arguably when it happens.
 
Last edited:
steelevt

steelevt

All-Star
#73
#73
I’d hate to continue to derail the thread but still gonna throw in my 2 cents. I was in the trade buddy over hb camp (for the right price for both that is). I actually like buddy overall, maybe not as much as you, but definitely more than some around here. I think he’s used wrong and if used correctly, while valuable, is kinda overpaid and replaceable. I always saw him as a Duncan Robinson, Bertans, McDermott, joe Harris, Kyle korver 3 point specialist mold. While I’d rather have buddy over most of those guys, I think we can replace him with a 3 point specialist for half the price or at least 2/3 the price. Also currently our options to replace either if traded leaned towards the favor of keeping hb. Ty is playing terrific and is shooting lights out from 3 and defensively. What were our options replacing hb? At 4 we had bagley who is always hurt or players not ready yet like Woodard or dqj at the 3. In the end I wasn’t gonna be happy letting any go for peanuts cuz I’m fans of both. But if I had to choose, due to money, and being replaceable, I’d have to go trade buddy. Hopefully this doesn’t hinder resigning holmes.
 
J

joemama

Starter
#74
#74
The stats are watching the visitor (game) broadcast. It is very frequent how shocked the announvers are by a horrible shot Hield takes especially at the end of close games. The utter disbelief has happened several times lately because thay's who Chavano is. He jacks up bad shot, with pressure, and not squared up to the basket.

I have to say as one of Hield's biggest antagonists, he has been contributing well on many fronts lately, specifically the game against GS where he rebounded and passed well.

Still he makes horrible decisions and once or twice a game he immediately fouls after the ball is stripped or he throws it away.

Opposing teams eyes open wide when they see Chavano in front because his man to man defense is poor. Some teams scheme is to wait for a defensive switch (of Hield) before attacking, see Clippers. He has been able to defend the post better with his added strength, but do we wamt our 6'4 guard in the post?

Hield is okay as a sixth man, a scorer off the bench. You post a lot of his career stats but plenty of his minutes come off the bench going against bench players. I don't remember a time in which Barnes came off the bench. Barnes is a much more capable defender, that goes against starters, and often defends the best wing player.

I would much rather Delon Wright be the first guard off the bench as opposed to Hield. Better passing, better playmaking, better ball handling and ability to dribble penetrate, better finisher at the basket, better length and defense. Better contract.
 
Last edited:
W

Woot!

Starter
#76
#76
mac said:
I just can't understand how you are reaching these conclusions. It's just like the guy talking about HB making everyone better but Buddy not and not even looking into the assist numbers. Now you start reaching into the realm of BS intangibles on a sub-500 team like locker room leadership and community involvement.

So leaving aside this season as you stated: Career averages
PPG (not even accounting for the fact that Barnes averaged 3.5 minutes more than Buddy, something you're so big on) - Buddy: 15.9, Barnes 12
eFG%: Buddy 54.5%, Barnes 50.3%
3P%: Buddy 41%, Barnes 37%
2P%: Buddy 47%, Barnes 48%
FTA/gm: Buddy 0.7, Barnes 2.9
FT%: Buddy 87%, Barnes 80%
Assists/gm: Buddy 2.2, Barnes 1.6

Either your definition of "FAR more versatile offensive game" = 2 free throw attempts more game, Barnes does not have a "FAR more versatile offensive game", or Barnes has the "FAR more versatile offensive game" but it hasn't amounted to diddly squat. You pick.

Barnes is a decent defender but let's not pretend he's some DPOY candidate out there locking down opposing wings. He may not "chuck the Kings out of games", but he has also been more than happy to be Mr Invisible, or has half a career season made you forget that?

Leading one's team in minutes also has a lot to do with what the potential back up is. Here's a thought experiment for you, who have the Kings' back up SF/PFs been for the past 2 years?

I hate that I'm having to sound as if I'm knocking Barnes, because I don't want to. I just think fans like you are looking at a career year by Barnes and a bad start by Hield and refusing to delve deeper into the numbers.

Here's another thought - EVEN if Barnes provides more value to the Kings than Buddy does in terms of individual play, if the market value for Barnes is that much higher than Buddy's then you could make the argument that the team might even be better off trading Barnes to get back more in return.
Click to expand...
My argument hardly hinges on them, but if you think leadership, role modeling, and community involvement are "BS intangibles," especially on a team w/a ton of young guys... okay.

Do you really not see that HB has a much more varied offensive game than Buddy? 3's, post-ups, drives, picks, facilitating, backdoor cuts, alley-oops. (Buddy, not so much, especially this year.) That versatility gives the team more options, something a better coaching staff would take greater advantage of. W/a little luck we'll have a new, better staff next year. His BBIQ is in another realm's from Buddy's on both ends of the floor,

Career averages are a reasonable gauge of, say, whether a player deserves HOFame consideration. They're at best an unreliable gauge of what can be expected of a player next year. Because players' games evolve. Would you roll out DFox's career numbers to anticipate what he'll do next year or would you weigh heavily the leap he's made this year?

Bottom line: HB is a good free throw shooter and a solid 3-pt shooter. Buddy is better on those fronts and I expect him to be better next year on those fronts. I expect HB to be better at everything else, including the "BS intangibles," and to be the better player overall. Neither of them is a must-keep; of course you see what you can get in trade. But at this point Buddy isn't worth his contract and I'd be happy to see him walk for much less than HB.
 
Last edited:
E

ESP47

All-Star
#77
#77
The_Jamal said:
Soooo...

4 back of the 7 seed Dallas with 27 games to go. Still difficult to make up that ground, but certainly possible with the time left.
Click to expand...
They'll have to start beating actual good teams at some point. I think they beat the Nuggets and Clippers back to back at the beginning of February and since then they've only beaten bad teams or teams with their best players sitting.

I think we're kind of looking at a mirage right now.
 
kb02

kb02

All-Star
#78
#78
mac said:
Please, I beg you, show me the stats that back up what you're saying. Yes he makes these dumb turnovers that stand out, but at the end of the day, his TOs are not significantly higher than Barnes'. If gifting points is your concern, Fox also gives up at least two fast break layups a game when he drives into traffic and gets stripped. Or how about missed FTs etc. Momentum is a thing but it is not the only thing that decides outcomes of a game. If all that mattered were crunch time then should we only look at or track stats for everyone in the last two minutes of close games?

This boils down to cognitive bias of sorts. You see Buddy do dumb things like dribble off his foot or fumble the ball, and you think ah because those were dumb they must be worse than any other kind of turnover, like getting stripped or throwing a bad pass. The reality is it doesn't matter whether you're getting the ball stripped by a DPOY twice a game, or dribbling the ball off your foot twice a game, if at the end of the day you still have two turnovers. If the averages equate, it really doesn't matter how it happens, and arguably when it happens.
Click to expand...
We had a little back and fourth over the summer whether Hali would be better than Buddy by the 2H of the year. Think that’s pretty obvious now. Here’s another prediction, when the new players arrive, at the end of close games, Barnes will be on the floor while Buddy is getting ubered on and off the court. You can count all the stats you want, the one that matters is winning.
 
sactowndog

sactowndog

All-Star
#79
#79
ESP47 said:
They'll have to start beating actual good teams at some point. I think they beat the Nuggets and Clippers back to back at the beginning of February and since then they've only beaten bad teams or teams with their best players sitting.

I think we're kind of looking at a mirage right now.
Click to expand...
yep. They have beaten teams that want to lose. We will know more this week if Vivek pushed to achieve a mirage.
 
R

regularkingsfan

G-League
#80
#80
mac said:
Please, I beg you, show me the stats that back up what you're saying. Yes he makes these dumb turnovers that stand out, but at the end of the day, his TOs are not significantly higher than Barnes'. If gifting points is your concern, Fox also gives up at least two fast break layups a game when he drives into traffic and gets stripped. Or how about missed FTs etc. Momentum is a thing but it is not the only thing that decides outcomes of a game. If all that mattered were crunch time then should we only look at or track stats for everyone in the last two minutes of close games?

This boils down to cognitive bias of sorts. You see Buddy do dumb things like dribble off his foot or fumble the ball, and you think ah because those were dumb they must be worse than any other kind of turnover, like getting stripped or throwing a bad pass. The reality is it doesn't matter whether you're getting the ball stripped by a DPOY twice a game, or dribbling the ball off your foot twice a game, if at the end of the day you still have two turnovers. If the averages equate, it really doesn't matter how it happens, and arguably when it happens.
Click to expand...
NBA.com has clutch stat. When the game is close, you can't trust Buddy.
https://go.nba.com/ux5y
 
Tetsujin

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#81
#81
ESP47 said:
They'll have to start beating actual good teams at some point. I think they beat the Nuggets and Clippers back to back at the beginning of February and since then they've only beaten bad teams or teams with their best players sitting.

I think we're kind of looking at a mirage right now.
Click to expand...
Really depends on what your definition of a “good team” is in this compact season. The Kings beat the Clippers (albeit without PG but with Kawhi), completely have owned the Nuggets for some reason, and have done fairly well against the meat of the eastern conference playoff hunt.

the thing about the Kings schedule for the rest of the season is that they get to play some of the really bad teams that they completely avoided in he first half of the season and with less back to backs than they’ve had earlier in the year.
They also get to play the teams directly in front of them in the playoff hunt a lot. (Spurs 3x, Dallas 3x, Memphis 2x, GS 1x though I don’t anticipate them being ahead of us for much longer). They also get to play the Thunder and T-Wolves six times.
Of the “elite teams”, the Kings have to play the Jazz three times, the Suns once, and the Bucks once. They play the Lakers twice but the Lakers are struggling to look competent while their two superstars deal with fairly significant injuries and won’t be back for the next time we play them in a week.

I get the fatalistic “the Kings haven’t beaten anyone good” argument but there might not be many “good” teams for the Kings to face over the rest of the season, for better or worse.
 
E

ESP47

All-Star
#83
#83
Tetsujin said:
Really depends on what your definition of a “good team” is in this compact season. The Kings beat the Clippers (albeit without PG but with Kawhi), completely have owned the Nuggets for some reason, and have done fairly well against the meat of the eastern conference playoff hunt.

the thing about the Kings schedule for the rest of the season is that they get to play some of the really bad teams that they completely avoided in he first half of the season and with less back to backs than they’ve had earlier in the year.
They also get to play the teams directly in front of them in the playoff hunt a lot. (Spurs 3x, Dallas 3x, Memphis 2x, GS 1x though I don’t anticipate them being ahead of us for much longer). They also get to play the Thunder and T-Wolves six times.
Of the “elite teams”, the Kings have to play the Jazz three times, the Suns once, and the Bucks once. They play the Lakers twice but the Lakers are struggling to look competent while their two superstars deal with fairly significant injuries and won’t be back for the next time we play them in a week.

I get the fatalistic “the Kings haven’t beaten anyone good” argument but there might not be many “good” teams for the Kings to face over the rest of the season, for better or worse.
Click to expand...
That's where the catch 22 begins to form in my mind. I know they can beat the Thunder and TWolves more often than not but if they rack up a bunch of wins and then get spanked when they play a decently good team in the play in game, then that makes the entire thing completely pointless and is essentially no different than the exact same thing they've done for years now.

We'll have to see how they play with the new guys but it's a high risk/low odds scenario in my opinion. I don't have faith in them beating two decently good teams in two play in games in a row after what I've seen this year. Could wind up looking like a better team with Delon Wright but going for it like this with a weak 2nd half schedule can easily put them in the worst possible position, which is losing the play in game and picking 14th or 15th in the draft.
 
sactowndog

sactowndog

All-Star
#85
#85
Tetsujin said:
Really depends on what your definition of a “good team” is in this compact season. The Kings beat the Clippers (albeit without PG but with Kawhi), completely have owned the Nuggets for some reason, and have done fairly well against the meat of the eastern conference playoff hunt.

the thing about the Kings schedule for the rest of the season is that they get to play some of the really bad teams that they completely avoided in he first half of the season and with less back to backs than they’ve had earlier in the year.
They also get to play the teams directly in front of them in the playoff hunt a lot. (Spurs 3x, Dallas 3x, Memphis 2x, GS 1x though I don’t anticipate them being ahead of us for much longer). They also get to play the Thunder and T-Wolves six times.
Of the “elite teams”, the Kings have to play the Jazz three times, the Suns once, and the Bucks once. They play the Lakers twice but the Lakers are struggling to look competent while their two superstars deal with fairly significant injuries and won’t be back for the next time we play them in a week.

I get the fatalistic “the Kings haven’t beaten anyone good” argument but there might not be many “good” teams for the Kings to face over the rest of the season, for better or worse.
Click to expand...
I agree. Why I think the three games against the Spurs will be telling.
 
sactowndog

sactowndog

All-Star
#86
#86
iowamcnabb said:
I was thinking about this today. If Portland had a starting 5 of

Dame
CJ
Buddy
Barnes
Holmes

Where do they finish in the west assuming they were together a full season?
Click to expand...
just like last year. Struggling to make the playoffs without Nurk. Did they answer that last year?
 
Last edited:
W

Woot!

Starter
#89
#89
sactowndog said:
I can’t see us tanking next year. Fox will be more consistent and Hali will take a 2nd year leap. These team needs to hope they can clear enough space to entice a free agent.
Click to expand...
I think that's right - in re not tanking next year. And, more generally, the Kings just can't afford to tank away seasons while the clock ticks on Fox's max contract. For sure, this was the year to do it if they wanted to go that route.

Problem w/free agency, leaving aside the challenge of getting a top free agent to Sacramento, is that it's a slim-pickin's year. Kawhi is about the only difference-maker who would fit and, uh, hard to see him coming to the Kings. For the longer term, Jarrett Allen's about the only guy who excites me, and he's restricted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.