Trade Deadline Thread
- Thread starter macadocious
- Start date
You dont only have to be a great shooter to be built around. Jimmy butler is an abysmal shooter but has had good teams built around him. You build to the skills of your stars. As for building around a great shooter/scorer in booker being easier, it took them 5 years to get a chris paul level player to join him (on a trade btw, not free agency). No free agents were rushing to Phoenix either. Even webber was brought ro Sacramento in trade. We need to put pieces to play off his skills and plug holes in his game like his shooting and sometimes defense. Trading him away for a crap piece just to do something it not a solution.
The issue the Kings haven't figured out is you can't until you start winning in the draft, build up an asset pool and having the right young guys/warchest to pull the trigger when someone like Cp3 is available for you to make a run.
The Vlade core was all-in. It didn't work. McNair pretty quickly looks like he found 2 starters in the back-court with some apparent upside. Which btw, is why you always BPA as a bad team; situations like this happen where it's time to move on from failed core pieces and trade for future value.
I don't think Fox and Booker are all that different talent spectrum either. Same with Mitchell. Results matter and Booker/Mitchell deserve props for their tremendous team success as a top player on their winning teams. But team and situational context matter as well. Until Fox finds himself in that, he's not going to shake that label. I guarantee if Booker/Mitchell were the same exact player they are now, but playing for the Kings? They'd be talked about in the same ways Fox is.
The Vlade core was all-in. It didn't work. McNair pretty quickly looks like he found 2 starters in the back-court with some apparent upside. Which btw, is why you always BPA as a bad team; situations like this happen where it's time to move on from failed core pieces and trade for future value.
I don't think Fox and Booker are all that different talent spectrum either. Same with Mitchell. Results matter and Booker/Mitchell deserve props for their tremendous team success as a top player on their winning teams. But team and situational context matter as well. Until Fox finds himself in that, he's not going to shake that label. I guarantee if Booker/Mitchell were the same exact player they are now, but playing for the Kings? They'd be talked about in the same ways Fox is.
It’s starting to feel like the argument is Fox is potentially just as good as any all star player but the situation has held him back. Mitchell, Booker, Lavine? Of course situation matters, but there is not a GM in the league that would consider swapping Fox for any of those players, and I would imagine they all generally understand he’s been in a bad situation in Sac. The reality is, for all of his strengths, Fox has some serious flaws in his game that have not sorted themselves out in a half decade. Those constant flaws (lack of shooting, ok playmaking, uninspired defense) are what they are at this point and the league knows it. Does that make him a bad player? Of course not, but you’re not fetching an all star for him. Getting Ingram is a pipe dream unless significant draft capital is included by sac (I would gladly eat my words if that is not the case). I would not love a fox/randle swap, but it absolutely is realistic value.
A straight swap of Fox for Randal should get Monte fired. In today's NBA, the point guard and wings is what makes a team a playoff/title contender. Betting on a bigman to get you to the promise land of the playoffs is 1990's thinking.
You do not trade a young Point Guard for a Power Forward in a straight swap, even if their stats are similar, especially if the Power Forward is older and doesn't fit the time line of your young backcourt. A lot more young assets (i.e. 1st round picks or Barrett) better be coming our way in that trade.
Fox plays the most important position in the NBA at a fairly high level. If Fox is moved it better not be in a straight swap for Randal, that would be pure lunacy. I would want Monte fired for that move!
You do not trade a young Point Guard for a Power Forward in a straight swap, even if their stats are similar, especially if the Power Forward is older and doesn't fit the time line of your young backcourt. A lot more young assets (i.e. 1st round picks or Barrett) better be coming our way in that trade.
Fox plays the most important position in the NBA at a fairly high level. If Fox is moved it better not be in a straight swap for Randal, that would be pure lunacy. I would want Monte fired for that move!
Kings fans: Fox sucks because he isn't an all-star!
Also Kings fans: Randle sucks and his all-star appearance doesn't count!
I realize that there's an argument to be made about semantics but (a) as far as I know, the only ones who're talking about this being a straight Randle for Fox swap are Knicks fans trying to fleece the Kings and (b) really not sure how Kings fans are so high on Sabonis, who is about as far away from a plug-and-play guy as possible (meaning the Kings would have to rework a large portion of their schemes and roster to get maximum yield from the guy), while simultaneously being so incredibly low on Randle (probably a bit more capable of playing as a pick-and-roll big with Haliburton and Mitchell, slightly better on defense, maybe not as impressive a passer as Domatas and not as efficient).
Also Kings fans: Randle sucks and his all-star appearance doesn't count!
I realize that there's an argument to be made about semantics but (a) as far as I know, the only ones who're talking about this being a straight Randle for Fox swap are Knicks fans trying to fleece the Kings and (b) really not sure how Kings fans are so high on Sabonis, who is about as far away from a plug-and-play guy as possible (meaning the Kings would have to rework a large portion of their schemes and roster to get maximum yield from the guy), while simultaneously being so incredibly low on Randle (probably a bit more capable of playing as a pick-and-roll big with Haliburton and Mitchell, slightly better on defense, maybe not as impressive a passer as Domatas and not as efficient).
With the caveat that everyone would prefer to just reset and build up the future warchest. But if we're going to insist on trying to win, at least you have your 3 core pieces set (Hali/Mitchell/Randle) to build around and plan for.
I also really think you can get the Randle Efficiency back too moving him off the lead playmaker role and getting to play with the best passer he's ever had in his career in Hali.
I also really think you can get the Randle Efficiency back too moving him off the lead playmaker role and getting to play with the best passer he's ever had in his career in Hali.
Let's just assume that Fox and Randal are equal players.
The mere fact that Fox plays the most important and most difficult position to fill (Point Guard) in the NBA would increase his value over an equal level front court player. Much like the Quarterback in football would command a higher trade value than an equally good (for their position) running back. There is a premium for the position that Fox plays and Monte should maximize that value by getting back more than just Randal in any Knicks trade. The NBA is a point guard and wing league, not a power forward league any more
The mere fact that Fox plays the most important and most difficult position to fill (Point Guard) in the NBA would increase his value over an equal level front court player. Much like the Quarterback in football would command a higher trade value than an equally good (for their position) running back. There is a premium for the position that Fox plays and Monte should maximize that value by getting back more than just Randal in any Knicks trade. The NBA is a point guard and wing league, not a power forward league any more
With the exception of the 2014-2015 Warriors, pretty much every single team that's won a championship over the last ten years has been led by a big/wing-forward unless you consider Lebron a guard and think Steph is better than KD.
I get what you're saying but it's not like teams are out here winning ship after ship on the back of strong point guard play.
Also the market for players is dictated by what teams will actually offer for them rather than what a team thinks it should get for them. If that means you need to hold onto an asset longer to get a better return for them, so be it but, considering how low the Blazers set the market with their firesale yesterday, I wouldn't get my hopes up for a huge return.
I get what you're saying but it's not like teams are out here winning ship after ship on the back of strong point guard play.
Also the market for players is dictated by what teams will actually offer for them rather than what a team thinks it should get for them. If that means you need to hold onto an asset longer to get a better return for them, so be it but, considering how low the Blazers set the market with their firesale yesterday, I wouldn't get my hopes up for a huge return.
Even trading Fox, are they going to be bad enough to “catch” Orlando, Detroit, Houston, and OKC? Maybe you want to hold off Indiana, and now Portland, I guess. Where I diverge from the “tank at all costs” crowd is whether I’m willing to accept lesser return on one asset (Fox) to increase the value of another asset (the team’s 2022 pick), when a lot of the return on the pick still depends on luck.
Again bad idea tax man.
After signing Randle to a 3 year extension, they now want to dump him. Come on man. We get Randle, our re-built is delayed another 3 years.
More wasted time, because the Kings need to bite the bullet and re-built upon Fox and Halli-and that is with top 5 selections for the next 2 years, with the TANK.
Tax man you seem like a serious student of the game, but make rookie mistakes.
After signing Randle to a 3 year extension, they now want to dump him. Come on man. We get Randle, our re-built is delayed another 3 years.
More wasted time, because the Kings need to bite the bullet and re-built upon Fox and Halli-and that is with top 5 selections for the next 2 years, with the TANK.
Tax man you seem like a serious student of the game, but make rookie mistakes.
At the moment, sure, but trying to out-tank Hinkie (edit: meant Presti, whoops!) sounds to me like trying to win a land war in Asia.
I’m all for trading anyone older than 25 on the team for younger players or picks, but I’m still squishy on whether you really need to sell low a 24 year old that’s shown flashes of all star caliber play when you’re likely to have a bottom 5 finish even with him still on board.
I’m all for trading anyone older than 25 on the team for younger players or picks, but I’m still squishy on whether you really need to sell low a 24 year old that’s shown flashes of all star caliber play when you’re likely to have a bottom 5 finish even with him still on board.
Last edited:
