State of the Kings Pre-trade Deadline Edition
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
- Status
Livinthedream
All-Star
It's not the trade details. The part of the article I quoted is a flashing warning light. It signals that this will not be a rebuild through the draft. Especially if you couple it with the "soft rebuild" description we got recently.
But who actually said "The Kings are clearly still pondering the possibility of adding the kind of impact piece that they believe would put them in the playoff mix." Is that speculation because we aren't just giving guys away for middle of the pack first rounders or is that straight from a Kings FO source? I have seen people outside Sacramento suggest that we would be making a move to acquire Kevin Love as a player instead of as a salary-for-picks deal which seems insane to me and feels like we are just being assigned stupid based on the last two regimes.
The only thing that seems clear to me is that we aren't going to giveaway Barnes, Buddy and Bagley for peanuts despite other NBA GMs thinking they can lowball us.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Well, that's worse than I figured.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
The issue is still that almost anyone can see that most of their early issues came from the coaching seat. Then they let it ride, it came back up, and fell again twice as hard. At a certain point even if you miraculously turn it around again your fighting time in a shortened season. The time to see if you could get a fresh start was after Walton sank the team that first time this year. Then Gentry would have maybe looked like a big part of the turn around that did happen when they finally took the boot off of Fox and maybe, just maybe they could have rode that momentum a bit farther. There are still games left to be played but now it's getting to the point where the playoff hunt means this team is forced to become a world beater in the span of a few weeks. That's too much pressure for a team that isn't building confidence throughout the season.
I don't think people are eager to see Barnes go so much as he seems to be the only trade asset we have that other teams have shown any interest in. Well, maybe if you're hoping we can tank our way to a #1 pick this year that might be a reason to ship Barnes out ASAP but I think that's taking things a little too far considering we'll need him next season if we have any aspirations of ending that no-playoffs streak.
I am pretty sure that if people want this team to suck as much as they think they do the only way that's going to happen is if we shipped Fox.
Folsomkingsfan
Starter
Agreed. Sell everything you can, but do so wisely. Worst case scenario is we get rid of Barnes for pennies and are still not bad enough to guarantee ourselves a top 5 pick.
macadocious
Starter
BillyStrings
G-League
How about one good player and one good coach? I’m increasingly convinced Walton is a HUGE part of this problem.
iowamcnabb
Hall of Famer
I wonder if this Bagely injury changes Monte's plan? If the Kings are serious about competing for the playoffs that would required trading for an all star or close level player. Since Ty and Fox are off the table that leaves our picks and maybe Bagley as pieces in a trade. I highly doubt anything will happen but the rumor was we were working on something big a week or so ago. If Kat or John Collins for example are targets you would have to assume the trading partner would want Bagley in return. Pure speculation here just thinking out loud.
Who said the missing piece is a player?
Siranthony
Starter
It's pretty clear this team is tanking. No sense fretting over it. Half the forum was expecting to tank. What makes it suck is the potential we saw a couple of times this season. I think this is a borderline playoff team right now if we were trying to win. But that is not going to happen this year with the team losing money. We still need a couple of pieces and probably a coach.
I don't think anyone wants to let Barnes go for peanuts. Teams picking in the top 10 aren't going to give away a lottery pick for Barnes because they don't need Barnes either. Only playoff teams that think they're one piece away will be trying to trade for him. They aren't going to trade a Barnes level player for Barnes because that would be treading water so all they're going to have are young players who maybe haven't gotten much run because they're stuck behind better players and end of the first round draft picks.
You just have to make a decision at some point. Do you believe Fox, Haliburton and this years rookie will be good enough to get the Kings into the playoffs while Barnes is here on his contract? If the answer is yes, then don't trade Barnes. If the answer is no, then keeping Barnes is pointless because there won't be a playoff berth and you'll just wind up losing him for either nothing or literally peanuts. It's impossible to answer that so we just have to go with the odds and the odds are low no matter what route you take but I think running it back with this squad + another rookie has even lower odds.
I'm not in complete disagreement other than we'd basically be committing to another 2-3 years of losing during Fox's deal.
I do think with the right coach this could be a .500 team.
I disagree with much of this. "One piece away" from what? Certainly, the Celts are being mentioned as a possible suitor for HB because they might think that if they stop underachieving HB might be the piece they need to make a deep playoff run. But neither Dallas nor the Kings were "one piece away" from making deep playoff runs and they acquired him anyway. Why? Because most teams are more than one piece away from championship contention and realize that much more often than not the main "building blocks" need to be acquired over time. If the price is reasonable, you don't pass on a good player simply because he's not the last piece in a potential championship puzzle. It's also true that championship contention isn't the only thing teams value. Having a "good," playoff-caliber team is crucial if your aim is to put butts in the seats and become a plausible destination for the real needle-movers. And most teams ARE plausibly one or two good players (and coaching) away from being playoff-caliber if the acquisitions are right.
There're a lot of moving pieces in your second paragraph. Fox/Haliburton aren't LeBron/Davis or Durant/Harden or Leonard/George or... and they might never become that. Surrounding them with bargain-basement scrubs won't get it done - and solid vets chasing championships won't take discount contracts to run w/them in Sacramento like they might these other pairs. So you need a plan to get that affordable talent in. Mind you, what the Kings - and lots of other teams - need even more is another stud. If dealing HB somehow moves you appreciably closer to that #1 goal, go for it. But I haven't heard any rumors that fall into that category. And Kings have a better chance of retaining HB at a decent price after next year if he's already here than if he's not.
Incidentally, a Barnes-for-Barnes-level player is certainly doable. It's not unusual for similar-impact players to play different positions or bring different skills sets to the same position. Barnes-Drummond? Not advocating for it. Jus' sayin'.
Last edited:
Well that's the whole point, the Kings need another stud. Are you banking on that guy coming from the Kings first round draft pick this year? If you are, then your plan should be to stay put because that's probably all that's needed to make the playoffs. I don't think that's a good plan unless that player is Cade Cunningham.
I'm just not quite sure what you're disagreeing with. I don't think finding affordable talent is the problem. Just finding talent, period, is the problem. The Kings don't have a whole lot of it at the moment. Barnes passes the eye test to all of us but his impact metrics have never been all that great. I think he's an overrated player so if a team offered me a decent package for him, I'd take it.
Money isn't an issue because it's not like the Kings need to keep the books open for a star free agent. They aren't coming here so as long as the books are open to be able to resign players like Fox, Haliburton etc, then that's all they really need to concentrate on. Whether Barnes wants to resign with us affordably or not doesn't mean anything if he's not making large contributions to winning. He doesn't really do that according to the metrics so if I have to gamble and trade him and hope that some other guys and a draft pick can do that, then I'm willing to make that gamble. I wouldn't trade him away for some other teams DQJ and the 26th pick in the draft but if there are some young players out there that show talent and I can get a draft pick along with them, I'll take the gamble because I'm not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel otherwise unless we get real lucky in the lottery.
Well, there you go. The fundamental disagreement is that you don't value him much and I do. Pretty sure we'd disagree about what a "decent" package for him might be. Sure, we need a stud. But, IMO, trading him for a mediocre young Celtics benchwarmer, or several, and a low 1st arguably moves this team further away from getting a stud than keeping him.
The best argument I see that it helps is that trading him makes the team worse and makes them more likely to get a higher pick. But the problem there isn't HB; it's Walton. I'm not a big fan of the tank, but if that's the strategy trading good players who can help you next year and beyond for chickens**t isn't the way to do it. As many have said, how about starting by not playing Fox/HB/Buddy massive minutes, and actually playing/developing the reasonably promising young guys who just might become solid contributors w/playing experience? As it is, we barely know what might be sitting at the end of Walton's bench.
Your assessment of him notwithstanding, HB is the Kings' 3rd most valuable trade piece right now - arguably their second given Fox's massive contract - and no one expects Fox and TH to go anywhere in any case. Trading him for more young players no better than the ones we have who can't get on the floor would be a pretty poor use of the team's too-scarce assets IMO.
Well yeah it's an easy decision when you make it seem like the Kings are going to trade him for James and Guy 2.0 + the 25th pick. The point is to get young players with real promise (recent first rounders) and hopefully if it's a trade to the Celtics, they'd stay where they are at and the Kings would be picking about 20th. A couple years ago, Thybulle and Clarke were picked around 20th. John Collins and Jarrett Allen were picked around 20th. Levert at 20th and so forth.
There are no other legitimate ways to acquire real talent unless it's with the Kings own draft pick. So you're either putting all your eggs in that basket + a leap from Fox, with Haliburton turning into a really good player or you've got to try something else to acquire talent. Barnes is the only tradable piece on the Kings that could fetch anything better than a 2nd rounder.
rosa u podne
Bench
Well there is also the story of Holmes boosting his value.
Last edited:
regularkingsfan
G-League
I just listened to the Ringer podcast this morning. They think Barnes' contract is good value. They think the Kings have the all the leverage with Barnes, so just wait.
I agree that we need more, much more talents. This upcoming offseason is likely the last season that we are under cap during the Fox era. Let's see what McNair will do with the cap space. Factoring in Holmes' cap hold and the 1st round pick's cap hold, maybe 10M of cap space. Then we have the room MLE and the bi-annual exception. We need a quality wing (likely from the draft), a good backup point guard (10M cap space), and a good backup center (room MLE). -----------> Playoffs????
Btw, I think Holmes will be resigned using his early Bird right. 4 year/35M
The Kings need more talent, more depth, and greater defensive ability. Although I am in agreement with the reasons to keep Barnes - i.e., he models professional behaviour, is a key contributor, and his value will not go down next season, I would be on board with trading him if we got two young players who are capable defensively plus a pick. He wouldn't be the first player I would trade - that would be Belly and our other expiring contracts then Buddy. And I do not see it as a complete fix - what is the point in having greater depth and defensive ability if the coaching staff cannot utilise more than seven players a game or plan out a coherent defence? But it's something - and status quo alone isn't going to get the team anywhere.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
The only thing about Barnes is he finally hasn't seen his role screwed around with. Barnes has never been a liability in Sac but this is also the first time he's been this featured at his best position. Individually his value won't likely get higher unless he moves up to a full time 2nd option because they moved Buddy.
There's a giant difference if we end up with the 8th pick, but it's with Aaron NeSmith balling out after getting traded here rather than getting the 8th pick keeping Barnes. More than likely though, when the Kings trade some of these vets away, the team is going to get worse, giving us a better shot at a top 5 pick.
It's a win-win scenario. Either the young guys on Fox/Hali age curve are better than expected or we bottom out further for a better pick. Not sure why people can't see that.
iowamcnabb
Hall of Famer
Ok we are 4 days out from the trade deadline. I know the King's rumor mill has fizzled and we are likely to hold on to Barnes, Buddy and Bags but who knows? We have 4 picks in the upcoming draft, what do you guys think will happen? Will we snag a late first for Belly? a second? Does some team think Cojo is worth a second? In another thread I proposed Bagley for Houstons late first round pick with Dante Exum coming back as an ender. Final prediction for the deadline?
SLAB
Hall of Famer
If I was a betting man, I’d bet on disappointment. Likely Bjeli for whatever. Don’t really think anything else goes down.
- Status
