Trade targets
- Thread starter dude12
- Start date
I was talking about just merely being a playoff team. I can't tell you how to build a championship team exactly and I don't think anyone else could either. The Warriors did it without a top 5 pick. They nailed the greatest shooter of all time, one of the greatest shooters of all time and one of the best defensive/passing big men of this era. Then the solid vets signed for pennies on the dollar. The Cavs did it with two #1 picks. Lakers with two #1 picks. The Heat had a #5 pick and signed a #5 and a #1. The Spurs originally did it with two #1s and then after that they repeated with a #1 and a handful of very good late lottery and non lottery picks. The Raptors and Bucks are the only teams I can think of in recent memory that the Kings could emulate to win a championship.
But I'm not even worried about a championship. I just want to see some playoff runs. You named a handful of players, most of which are really good. Give me 2 or 3 of those players and the Kings are more than likely in the playoffs unless those players are Wiseman, Bagley and Fultz...which I'm sure every Kings GM since Petrie would have probably done if given the chance.
The odds are not in your favor to be able to draft Ben Simmons 2.0 this year but think if the Kings would have just gone through with this plan already, they would more than likely have a Simmons plus draft picks and be in the same position as having Simmons and no draft picks. You know this franchise does not come by talented players very often, which is why you're wanting to make this trade but I'm just saying that these types of players are available in the draft every year and you don't have to give up anything to get them. How can the Kings possibly win a championship, or even make the playoffs if their main assets are Simmons, Fox, Barnes and no first round picks for a few years?
But I'm not even worried about a championship. I just want to see some playoff runs. You named a handful of players, most of which are really good. Give me 2 or 3 of those players and the Kings are more than likely in the playoffs unless those players are Wiseman, Bagley and Fultz...which I'm sure every Kings GM since Petrie would have probably done if given the chance.
The odds are not in your favor to be able to draft Ben Simmons 2.0 this year but think if the Kings would have just gone through with this plan already, they would more than likely have a Simmons plus draft picks and be in the same position as having Simmons and no draft picks. You know this franchise does not come by talented players very often, which is why you're wanting to make this trade but I'm just saying that these types of players are available in the draft every year and you don't have to give up anything to get them. How can the Kings possibly win a championship, or even make the playoffs if their main assets are Simmons, Fox, Barnes and no first round picks for a few years?
There's a difference between rationalization and laying out facts why I don't support something. While there is much in your post I agree with, there are indeed several things I do not.
I am in no way making fun of mental health. In fact, I seem to be one of the few actually taking his statements seriously. He has said he "can't" play. "Can't". Others keep saying that he's just "making that up" and will play as soon as he is traded - it's "not a problem". Those are the folks I think aren't taking him seriously.
I've never said Haliburton is untradable. I just don't think packaging the best young player we have (on a very team-friendly contract) with who knows how many FRP and other players Philly is demanding, plus taking on about $70 million in salary per year for two players (only one of which we really want/need) is the best way to spend our assets. We effectively gut our team and send out our future picks for one great defensive player who may or may not play once he's traded here (see the paragraph above - again, I'm one of the few who seem to be taking him at his word that he can't play basketball right now and who knows when that might change).
I've been very vocal about not wanting to trade everyone away for picks on the hope we magically land a top 3 and then hopefully don't blow it on an Oden or Pervis Ellison. But I also am firm that we should use our picks smartly, and not throw them away needlessly. There's a distinction to be drawn there. While FRP are indeed a bit of a crapshoot sometimes, they are also a good way to add talent if we use them effectively. And so far Monte has done fine with that, or at least not totally blown the picks like we have in years past.
Fox and Simmons would indeed be better than most of our previous picks. They also aren't necessarily as good as Cousins (who we picked) and may not be as good as who Monte would pick with a top-5 pick in the next year or two. We have picked well at times and then not done what we need to build around them in previous years, or not had a good coach in place to maximize their effectiveness. I hope that by next year we'll have a better idea on how the front office and coaching will do in managing and turning around this team (I sincerely doubt Gentry is back). But we still have no idea if we gut the team's current players and trade away our FRP that we'd even have a player that would suit up for us (whether through legitimate reasons [mental health] or through sitting out like he is this year for whatever reason he comes up with [coach said something non-supportive, or the team isn't winning, or ???]. So we get rid of several decent players, give away several FRP, hamstring ourselves financially, possibly have the player we traded everything for not be playing at all, and you think "what do we have to lose"? Really? How will we improve the talent in that situation? Which quality coach will want to take that on?
Simmons is indeed a risk. A big one. To me, bigger than Webber and Artest. Because those guys would play. Simmons isn't what I would consider a "franchise player". Webber and Cousins, to name two off the top of my head, were each more of a franchise player than Simmons will ever be.
The option isn't do I take a million right now vs. do I have 5 half-court shots in a row at $10 million. It's do I give up my salary for 3 of the next 5 years, max out my credit cards, and trade away my new car I like in exchange for one half-court shot at $1 million, or do I keep what I currently own and get 3 3/4-court shots (or heck, full-court shots) at $1 million each. That is a much riskier proposition, and more in tune with the actual situation we are dealing with here. The 3 individual shots are indeed "riskier" for the same return per attempt (you are less likely to succeed), but you have more of them, and you aren't giving away something you already like for the opportunity (while taking on more debt in the process).
I am in no way making fun of mental health. In fact, I seem to be one of the few actually taking his statements seriously. He has said he "can't" play. "Can't". Others keep saying that he's just "making that up" and will play as soon as he is traded - it's "not a problem". Those are the folks I think aren't taking him seriously.
I've never said Haliburton is untradable. I just don't think packaging the best young player we have (on a very team-friendly contract) with who knows how many FRP and other players Philly is demanding, plus taking on about $70 million in salary per year for two players (only one of which we really want/need) is the best way to spend our assets. We effectively gut our team and send out our future picks for one great defensive player who may or may not play once he's traded here (see the paragraph above - again, I'm one of the few who seem to be taking him at his word that he can't play basketball right now and who knows when that might change).
I've been very vocal about not wanting to trade everyone away for picks on the hope we magically land a top 3 and then hopefully don't blow it on an Oden or Pervis Ellison. But I also am firm that we should use our picks smartly, and not throw them away needlessly. There's a distinction to be drawn there. While FRP are indeed a bit of a crapshoot sometimes, they are also a good way to add talent if we use them effectively. And so far Monte has done fine with that, or at least not totally blown the picks like we have in years past.
Fox and Simmons would indeed be better than most of our previous picks. They also aren't necessarily as good as Cousins (who we picked) and may not be as good as who Monte would pick with a top-5 pick in the next year or two. We have picked well at times and then not done what we need to build around them in previous years, or not had a good coach in place to maximize their effectiveness. I hope that by next year we'll have a better idea on how the front office and coaching will do in managing and turning around this team (I sincerely doubt Gentry is back). But we still have no idea if we gut the team's current players and trade away our FRP that we'd even have a player that would suit up for us (whether through legitimate reasons [mental health] or through sitting out like he is this year for whatever reason he comes up with [coach said something non-supportive, or the team isn't winning, or ???]. So we get rid of several decent players, give away several FRP, hamstring ourselves financially, possibly have the player we traded everything for not be playing at all, and you think "what do we have to lose"? Really? How will we improve the talent in that situation? Which quality coach will want to take that on?
Simmons is indeed a risk. A big one. To me, bigger than Webber and Artest. Because those guys would play. Simmons isn't what I would consider a "franchise player". Webber and Cousins, to name two off the top of my head, were each more of a franchise player than Simmons will ever be.
The option isn't do I take a million right now vs. do I have 5 half-court shots in a row at $10 million. It's do I give up my salary for 3 of the next 5 years, max out my credit cards, and trade away my new car I like in exchange for one half-court shot at $1 million, or do I keep what I currently own and get 3 3/4-court shots (or heck, full-court shots) at $1 million each. That is a much riskier proposition, and more in tune with the actual situation we are dealing with here. The 3 individual shots are indeed "riskier" for the same return per attempt (you are less likely to succeed), but you have more of them, and you aren't giving away something you already like for the opportunity (while taking on more debt in the process).
Last edited:
We're in agreement with most of this. Regarding this part: "these types of players are available in the draft every year and you don't have to give up anything to get them". In order to get a quality starter in the draft you typically need a high lottery pick, right? That's what we've been discussing back and forth. So the opportunity cost there is an entire season of losing which is 100 million plus in payroll wasted, fans continuing to lose interest, ownership getting impatient due to declining ticket sales, and if you have a star player or even an almost star already on your roster you've burned a year of their contract and placed them that much closer to either leaving in free agency, age or injury related decline, or best-case they're staying but getting a pay raise when their contract runs out. If you have an elite rookie they're now one year closer to a massive pay raise.
All's I'm saying here is that the goal of tanking is to stack multiple top 5 picks together and we have a chance to stack multiple top 5 picks together right now in Fox and Simmons. Both are among the league leaders in their areas of expertise (for Fox it was PPG, APG, and SPG until this season when he's been playing a large chunk of his minutes off the ball -- for Simmons it's been APG, RPG, SPG and most advanced defensive metrics). And we wouldn't have to wait to develop them into All Star level talents and we wouldn't need to risk the lottery sliding us back into the 8-12 range again. Their salary is almost irrelevant since any comparable player is going to be getting that same salary. Once you have a solid core that elevates your baseline to a spot in the playoffs every year you might even be able to add key pieces in free agency. Sacramento managed to do that in the early 2000s when we were a lock for 50+ wins every year.
The counter argument appears to be that Haliburton and a presumed top 5 pick in this year's draft is a better core than Fox and Simmons and all I can say to that is that I strongly disagree. Or at least there's a lot of "what if" involved in that scenario. Assuming we even get the top 5 pick, they're probably not going to have the defensive impact that Simmons will have. What if the BPA available is another guard? What if it's another scoring big man like Bagley who won't move the needle much defensively? Nobody here knows who the top 5 in the draft will be next year or the year after that. Nobody knows where we will be drafting until the lottery. There's just so much that needs to break right to get an All-NBA player that I feel like we should jump on one while he's available.
All's I'm saying here is that the goal of tanking is to stack multiple top 5 picks together and we have a chance to stack multiple top 5 picks together right now in Fox and Simmons. Both are among the league leaders in their areas of expertise (for Fox it was PPG, APG, and SPG until this season when he's been playing a large chunk of his minutes off the ball -- for Simmons it's been APG, RPG, SPG and most advanced defensive metrics). And we wouldn't have to wait to develop them into All Star level talents and we wouldn't need to risk the lottery sliding us back into the 8-12 range again. Their salary is almost irrelevant since any comparable player is going to be getting that same salary. Once you have a solid core that elevates your baseline to a spot in the playoffs every year you might even be able to add key pieces in free agency. Sacramento managed to do that in the early 2000s when we were a lock for 50+ wins every year.
The counter argument appears to be that Haliburton and a presumed top 5 pick in this year's draft is a better core than Fox and Simmons and all I can say to that is that I strongly disagree. Or at least there's a lot of "what if" involved in that scenario. Assuming we even get the top 5 pick, they're probably not going to have the defensive impact that Simmons will have. What if the BPA available is another guard? What if it's another scoring big man like Bagley who won't move the needle much defensively? Nobody here knows who the top 5 in the draft will be next year or the year after that. Nobody knows where we will be drafting until the lottery. There's just so much that needs to break right to get an All-NBA player that I feel like we should jump on one while he's available.
Hey, that's fair. I've already written more than enough on the topic. I'm probably not as gung ho on the "let's get Simmons" train as I seem to be, I just can't believe I'm the only one watching this Kings basketball product right now and thinking we could use a highly flexible DPOY anchoring our team. Simmons takes a lot of unnecessary flack from the sports media in my opinion for being elite at everything except shooting. He's arguably the best individual defender in the league. We don't care if Jarrett Allen or Rudy Gobert can handle, pass, or shoot -- why is it such a travesty that Simmons can only do two of those things? I've also stated before that I think a Defensive Player of the Year is a franchise player as far as I'm concerned even if their offensive impact is minimal. But that doesn't seem to be a view most are in alignment with.
Just to discuss the points above:
If we trade for Simmons and he doesn't play, how does this help our fan interest or player development when we've already traded away $70 million in players to get him?
Oh, the salary is relevant. Because it isn't just the $30 million for Simmons (who may not play), it is also the $40 million for Harris who we really don't want or need but is apparently being packaged with Simmons according to many reports. And they still want additional draft compensation!
True, our FRP will likely not have Simmons' defensive prowess. Few do! But Simmons doesn't have Webber's or Cousins' skills either. You really can't have everything unless you draft that unicorn. Every good player has weaknesses. Simmons can't shoot FT or score outside the paint, which limits him quite a bit offensively. With Fox not being the best at outside shooting either, that might be difficult to work around on that half of the court.
If the cost were not outrageous (if Philly was reasonable), I'd be much more amenable to getting Simmons. But I think the cost is just astronomical considering the risks involved.
If we trade for Simmons and he doesn't play, how does this help our fan interest or player development when we've already traded away $70 million in players to get him?
Oh, the salary is relevant. Because it isn't just the $30 million for Simmons (who may not play), it is also the $40 million for Harris who we really don't want or need but is apparently being packaged with Simmons according to many reports. And they still want additional draft compensation!
True, our FRP will likely not have Simmons' defensive prowess. Few do! But Simmons doesn't have Webber's or Cousins' skills either. You really can't have everything unless you draft that unicorn. Every good player has weaknesses. Simmons can't shoot FT or score outside the paint, which limits him quite a bit offensively. With Fox not being the best at outside shooting either, that might be difficult to work around on that half of the court.
If the cost were not outrageous (if Philly was reasonable), I'd be much more amenable to getting Simmons. But I think the cost is just astronomical considering the risks involved.
Equally fair - and I'm not as anti-Simmons as I sometimes come across. I just think the price being asked is WAY too much for the possible return, especially when we don't know if/when he will play again.
Edit: If we had some clarity on his situation (and the cost was more reasonable) I'd be much more amenable to a trade. If he came out and said: "I would be back on the court within 2 weeks of a trade to get some practice conditioning in - the "mental health" reason I gave was not a wise excuse to use and was a bit of a stretch, I just want to be traded, and I don't care where." - that would be somewhat of a relief (if true). If he said "I've been getting the help I need to improve my mental state and think that I'm good to go." - that would also be a big relief (and I'd be glad for him personally).
Right now, we just don't know what the real situation is, how long it will take for him to ever play again, and what kind of player he will be when he does hit the court, wherever that is (Philly, Sac, ???). That's one of my biggest concerns.
Edit: If we had some clarity on his situation (and the cost was more reasonable) I'd be much more amenable to a trade. If he came out and said: "I would be back on the court within 2 weeks of a trade to get some practice conditioning in - the "mental health" reason I gave was not a wise excuse to use and was a bit of a stretch, I just want to be traded, and I don't care where." - that would be somewhat of a relief (if true). If he said "I've been getting the help I need to improve my mental state and think that I'm good to go." - that would also be a big relief (and I'd be glad for him personally).
Right now, we just don't know what the real situation is, how long it will take for him to ever play again, and what kind of player he will be when he does hit the court, wherever that is (Philly, Sac, ???). That's one of my biggest concerns.
Last edited:
100% all of this. Sacramento fans have their own kind of fishbowl where ideas like "Tyrese Haliburton is a top 20 player" germinate and grow into cannonized fact somehow while any other fan in the league will tell you that's crazy talk. Is he an exciting young player with potential? Absolutely. That's why he has enough trade value to start a conversation with Morey for a disgruntled star but it's also mostly unrealized potential while what Simmons provides on the court is plainly apparent.
And in response to @Warhawk , I totally agree that some more clarity on Simmons' status right now would be nice to have before committing to 3 more years of his sizable contract. I would hope that any front office seriously looking to make a trade would be in conversation with his people on exactly that topic. We need to find out what he needs to get ready to play and what kind of support is needed to keep him in a healthy frame of mind. I don't know that the information needs to be conveyed publicly, but it needs to be conveyed somehow.
I also think Philadephia played this whole situation terribly. From day one they should have had Simmons' back and said to the media "hey that's our guy. he's working harder than anyone else on the defensive end of the floor which most winning coaches will tell you is the most important side of the ball anyway. it's everyone else's job to score the ball" and then privately you tell him we support you no matter what but we want to win here too so we at least need you to work on your free throws. I also don't entirely mind that the Sixers organization has torched their relationship to Simmons though if it opens up an opportunity for us to elevate our own position by poaching an elite defender.
I also appreciate that at least some of us have been able to progress past the "lol Simmons is trash" tenor where this conversation started. I don't mind when people disagree with me but at least come to the table with an argument not some generic Twitter fodder.
And in response to @Warhawk , I totally agree that some more clarity on Simmons' status right now would be nice to have before committing to 3 more years of his sizable contract. I would hope that any front office seriously looking to make a trade would be in conversation with his people on exactly that topic. We need to find out what he needs to get ready to play and what kind of support is needed to keep him in a healthy frame of mind. I don't know that the information needs to be conveyed publicly, but it needs to be conveyed somehow.
I also think Philadephia played this whole situation terribly. From day one they should have had Simmons' back and said to the media "hey that's our guy. he's working harder than anyone else on the defensive end of the floor which most winning coaches will tell you is the most important side of the ball anyway. it's everyone else's job to score the ball" and then privately you tell him we support you no matter what but we want to win here too so we at least need you to work on your free throws. I also don't entirely mind that the Sixers organization has torched their relationship to Simmons though if it opens up an opportunity for us to elevate our own position by poaching an elite defender.
I also appreciate that at least some of us have been able to progress past the "lol Simmons is trash" tenor where this conversation started. I don't mind when people disagree with me but at least come to the table with an argument not some generic Twitter fodder.
I concur 100%.
He's not trash, he's an outstanding player defensively (and good but in some ways very limited offensively) who is in a very nebulous place right now. He also has a $30 million contract for 3 more years and the Sixers GM is asking for any takers to absorb another $36-40 million contract and wants player and draft compensation like he is Giannis or prime LBJ. That's my issue.
He's not trash, he's an outstanding player defensively (and good but in some ways very limited offensively) who is in a very nebulous place right now. He also has a $30 million contract for 3 more years and the Sixers GM is asking for any takers to absorb another $36-40 million contract and wants player and draft compensation like he is Giannis or prime LBJ. That's my issue.
I personally don't see much of a difference in winning 25 games vs. winning 32 games. We all lose interest halfway through the season regardless. It's why our game threads start at like 20 pages long and dwindle down to next to nothing by the end of the season. To me, it's really not a big deal to just bite the bullet here and there and rest your starters randomly to give yourself a good chance at the top 5. Other teams do it routinely.
Sixers want Hali plus multiple FRP. Hali + one FRP and I'm listening but not for multiple picks. That hamstrings the team for far too long. I personally don't think Fox and Simmons would be able to work together at all and in the end I have a feeling Fox would have to be traded in order to make a playoff run. If this was a player that was a better fit, I'd be more open to it but it's just an ill fit on the offensive side of the ball no matter how you look at it. I'm fine with looking into Simmons but it's not on Morey's terms. He doesn't have to trade him but I don't believe in paying a Kings tax to get him either.
But you know me, if trades are going to be made, I'd rather just trade everyone except Hali for picks and start the entire thing over with. If I could get a lottery pick and two first rounders in the next couple years for some of our guys and lottery willing, pick top 5 this year and next. I think I'd rather take a shot with 2 top 5 picks, a back end lottery pick and a couple 20th picks than I would by trying to tweak the current roster. Is it a gamble? Yeah it is but I don't see swapping value for similar value doing anything to this team. It's not like they're good offensively and terrible defensively and just need balance. They're just bad all around.
Sixers want Hali plus multiple FRP. Hali + one FRP and I'm listening but not for multiple picks. That hamstrings the team for far too long. I personally don't think Fox and Simmons would be able to work together at all and in the end I have a feeling Fox would have to be traded in order to make a playoff run. If this was a player that was a better fit, I'd be more open to it but it's just an ill fit on the offensive side of the ball no matter how you look at it. I'm fine with looking into Simmons but it's not on Morey's terms. He doesn't have to trade him but I don't believe in paying a Kings tax to get him either.
But you know me, if trades are going to be made, I'd rather just trade everyone except Hali for picks and start the entire thing over with. If I could get a lottery pick and two first rounders in the next couple years for some of our guys and lottery willing, pick top 5 this year and next. I think I'd rather take a shot with 2 top 5 picks, a back end lottery pick and a couple 20th picks than I would by trying to tweak the current roster. Is it a gamble? Yeah it is but I don't see swapping value for similar value doing anything to this team. It's not like they're good offensively and terrible defensively and just need balance. They're just bad all around.
I used to be very enthusiastic about first round picks too until I saw how the Kings used them year after year. Now I think they're great value to some franchises, decent value for others, and almost worthless for ours. Unless we decided to quadruple the size of our scouting department in the last year (and no don't just mean investing in more number crunching computers) I don't have much faith that our front office's ability to identify franchise changing talent will improve.
I gotta say, I'm always amused by the really long posts that boil down to absurdities in the end when you look closely. This guy is basically saying "We should trade Simmons for Haliburton because Haliburton is really bad." This is how you know he doesn't believe his own argument. He actually thinks Haliburton is really good, which is why he wants Haliburton and NOT Fox for Simmons. Then he finds a way to pretend Haliburton is really bad to...I don't know, hopefully convince the Kings front office to trade Haliburton? It's really at sort of the "Collect Underpants" stage of the plan. But hey, full credit for self-delusion, or Machiavellian strategy, or something.
You think a fan posting on realgm is trying to convince the Kings front office to make a trade? I don't think very highly of our front office either but I give them more credit than that. When you lose a game by 50 points and say anyone on your roster is untouchable, that should require some justification because it's pretty absurd. He didn't say Haliburton is bad, he's questioning why anyone would think his value is higher than a guy with an All-NBA selection on his resume. Ben Simmons is going to play NBA basketball again somewhere and if we look back in 5 years and he's leading a team to the playoffs every year and we're still rebuilding it will be hard to justify turning down the opportunity to trade Haliburton for Simmons.
The Nets are not taking calls on Harden this year (not a surprise to anyone I don't think) but the rumblings are they are confident the artist formerly known as Hardees is committed to Brooklyn long term. That could change or not be true to begin with, but for argument sake lets say it is. Does this change the stance of Philly at the deadline? If they have knowledge that Harden is a no go next season, will they still hold out for a Beal or Lillard?
Re-reading that, I think I got the gist of it wrong. Sounds like he actually doesn't like Haliburton, somehow I read his "why won't the Kings trade us Haliburton" as a desire to make the trade rather than "We would be dumb to make the move, so the Kings should want to". My bad on the reading comprehension.
John Collins would be another double-dip type of acquisition in terms of a win-now player, while still planning for the future. Really good, only 24 years old, lights-out shooter, have him long-term. Fox/Hali/Collins would be by far the most talented trio we've had in 15 years and still just 24,21,24. If we insist on trying to win, I'd rather shell assets for a guy like Collins who compliments Fox/Hali better than Sabonis/Simmons, fits their age curve, signed long-term and isn't going to cost as much.
