He wasn't all-NBA when we had him, now was he?
He's grown into a player that frankly is better than I personally thought he'd be (and I hated to see him traded but thought the trade itself was good), but this revisionist history is pretty hilarious.
Tyrese Watch
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
He's grown into a player that frankly is better than I personally thought he'd be (and I hated to see him traded but thought the trade itself was good), but this revisionist history is pretty hilarious.
Tizzy Flip
Starter
It’s hard to revise history when you can actually go back to when we made the trade and review all the posts where tons of fans were in shock, knowing we were trading a future all-star and all-NBA player. JJ Redick’s podcast reaction at the time when he said we made a huge mistake led to him being called a clown over here. Seems like the criteria here for many on this board is if you trade a young whiz who’s not yet an All-star for an actual All-star is a win. I’ve wondered what makes a franchise incompetent and that’s probably one that sticks out; they make decisions based on stats and awards, but don’t have the vision of what could be 2-4 years down the line with someone like Hali. We would prolly have done the same if we drafted SGA
It's also easy to look back in retrospect and hammer a move that was widely praised as a win-win when a team doesn't build correctly afterwards.
And who is to say that it would have ended any better with Hali here? The Kings didn't build correctly around Fox or Sabonis. Why would this be different? Alternate realities can always be shaped to those crafting them. Doesn't mean they are real or valid.
But hey, you do you.
Tizzy Flip
Starter
For those wanting to revise history and see all our reactions in 1 thread! It’s actually a pretty funny look back
https://community.kingsfans.com/thr...buddy-for-sabonis-and-holiday-and-lamb.83999/
hgut
G-League
Just no. Haliburton thrived in every context—playing alongside Fox in Sacramento, without him, and now as the clear leader in Indiana.
We can't say the same for Fox. His numbers dipped when Haliburton was here, and while we’ll see how things unfold in San Antonio, the early signs aren’t exactly encouraging.
The bottom line is that it’s simply easier to build a winning team around Haliburton. He’s a true superstar—an elite playmaker who makes everyone around him better. Fox, while talented, hasn’t shown that same ability to elevate a team’s ceiling.
And frankly, the Kings’ front office deserves real criticism for failing to recognize that—not just with Haliburton, but with Luka too. That’s two generational talents they misread. That's not bad luck. That's bad evaluation.
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
I think you're missing the point with the statement I've bolded...No one's saying that it's not easier to build a winning team around Tyrese. What we're trying to say here is that, even if it would've been easier for OUR front office to build around him, what makes you believe that they would have been successful in doing so?
Everything that this front office has done pretty much since the day Vivek took over gives me absolutely ZERO hope that they would've nailed the rebuild had they kept Tyrese instead of Fox, regardless of how easier it would've potentially been.
Tizzy Flip
Starter
And what I’m saying and a lot of others is a player like Hali can offset a lot of organizational incompetence. When you have a player who got Richuan Holmes 4 yrs / $55 mil, you do whatever it takes to keep that player. He can literally turn chicken poop into chicken salad. But then at the same time you really question you’re internal decision-making for paying Holmes that much
hgut
G-League
It's entirely possible that our front office wouldn’t have been as successful as Indiana’s — even if building around Tyrese was the easier path. But I’m absolutely convinced that if they had chosen to keep Tyrese, the potential for a smoother and more sustainable run at contention would’ve been significantly higher.
The point isn’t about guaranteeing success — it's about acknowledging that Tyrese’s skillset and playstyle naturally make team-building more straightforward. Whether our FO would've executed well is a separate (and valid) concern, but that doesn’t change the fact that the foundational choice did matter.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
What rookie is an all nba player six months into there career it’s projecting but you’re right nobody saw this potential in haliburton expect everyone outside of Sacramento
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
If we're merely talking about "the potential for a smoother and more sustainable run", then yes, I agree with you.
Some on here (you not being one of them, by the way), however, have led themselves to guarantee that we would've had "a smoother and more sustainable run", and that's what I have to question...How can you GUARANTEE that based on the moves that were made post-Tyrese trade? That's my point. And that's my ultimate question.
Padrino
All-Star
There are a lot of people getting waaaaay out in front of their skis in this thread. We probably need to see how OKC responds and how Haliburton fares in the rest of the series before we go proclaiming he's a "generational superstar". He hit a really huge shot in a really huge game, and that matters. But he really wasn't that effective for much of the night. And Haliburton's been known to shrink and disappear right when you imagine he's about to take the leap and stamp his imprint on every game he plays.
He's incredibly talented, but when it's all said and done, there will always be a difference between guys like LeBron, Steph, Jokic, etc. and guys in the tiers below them. And it seems like a lot of salty Kings fans desperately want to place Haliburton in that uppermost echelon as a way of crafting a "sky is falling" narrative around the Kings' front office failures. Now, if the Pacers down the Thunder in 6 as a result of Haliburton asserting his will on the game, I'll be the first to step forward and say, "You know what? He's that guy." But... let's wait and see first? A "generational superstar" wins titles, after all. Hell, we don't even call SGA a "generational superstar" and the guy won MVP. Cool your jets, Kings fans. The games need to be played.
He's incredibly talented, but when it's all said and done, there will always be a difference between guys like LeBron, Steph, Jokic, etc. and guys in the tiers below them. And it seems like a lot of salty Kings fans desperately want to place Haliburton in that uppermost echelon as a way of crafting a "sky is falling" narrative around the Kings' front office failures. Now, if the Pacers down the Thunder in 6 as a result of Haliburton asserting his will on the game, I'll be the first to step forward and say, "You know what? He's that guy." But... let's wait and see first? A "generational superstar" wins titles, after all. Hell, we don't even call SGA a "generational superstar" and the guy won MVP. Cool your jets, Kings fans. The games need to be played.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
Semantics but he wasn’t a rookie when he got traded.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
I don’t think anyone is claiming he’s a generational superstar though just that we traded a top ten player on a rookie contract for Sabonis. OKC is most likely beating Indiana there stacked
Tizzy Flip
Starter
Generational superstar is definitely reserved for players like MJ, Kobe, Lebron. But I don’t see people calling him generational; maybe the pure volume of clutch baskets in such a short span is considered generational/legendary
I legit want to get what you think of people like Dwayne Wade, Paul George, etc calling him a superstar though. Steve Nash and Lebron didn’t really talk about the superstar label in their podcast but they were describing the way he plays and leads as a superstar. I tend to take past and current superstars word on this topic
ShastaKingsFan
All-Star
The word again is "foresight". A certain segment around here use little of it and won't "say much" until after the fact, while getting into the semantic game of arguing labels. Really what it is, is a way to deflect and change the subject from how much impact he is having. All the former and current players recognize it.
You are making my point for me. Everyone is saying that "if we only kept Hali" - except, everything we know indicates they would not have been able to do what needed to be done to build a winner around him for the long term.
Hali was one of my favorite players here - I wasn't happy to see him go (in a vacuum). But you have to give to get. And everyone wanted to "get" because we were still stinking with Hali here. Nobody would trade for Fox. We held few cards and wanted to make a move. They played the cards they held. We got a relatively young multiple time all-star in return who immediately catapulted us into the PO.
You may not like it. It may not ultimately work out. Or maybe Perry finally starts building a cohesive team and we shoot back into the playoffs. In a year or two positions may be switched again. Impossible to know ahead of time, but it's always easy to criticize in retrospect.
ShastaKingsFan
All-Star
I keep seeing this type of statement and it doesn't make any sense to me. If the Kings can't do what it takes to build a winner around anybody, should they just throw in the towel and let every chance at a young lead player slip through their hands?
You can't take advantage of good fortune and build towards something better, by just letting that player or players go somewhere else. They currently have none of Fox, Doncic, and Haliburton. Think about that for a second. They have little to show for any of that good fortune that everyone was begging for prior to that.
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
No one's saying that the Kings should throw in the towel. I think you're reading too much into our comments/arguments. What we're trying to get at here is that, even if the Kings had kept Tyrese over Fox, there's no evidence that tells us that they would have been able to nail the rebuild, regardless of how much easier it may have been to build around Tyrese. And, because of that, it's difficult to say with any degree of certainty that we would've been better off had we traded Fox instead of Tyrese.
THAT'S our point.
Padrino
All-Star
I tend not to get caught up in the hyperbole, whether it comes from fans or former players. Statistically, Tyrese has the same impact on winning as Domas. In fact, they're pretty much the exact same tier of player in most relevant impact categories. Pretty much the same exact usage, win shares, VORP, BPM, PER, etc. It's kind of uncanny, honestly. But one is on a team optimized for his skillset, and the other is not. One has had front office and coaching stability since his arrival, the other has not. One plays in an extremely lightweight conference, the other does not.
Circumstance is everything in the NBA. We'll never know how the Kings would have fared if they had kept Haliburton, but I can tell you one thing for certain: if the Kings had kept Haliburton and he was not able to end the Kings' playoff futility streak in such a brutally competitive conference, Kings fans would be treating him the same way they're treating Domas right now. The complaints would be identical. He's not assertive enough. He disappears at inopportune moments. He's too awful defensively to build around. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Tizzy Flip
Starter
Genuinely curious, can you share whatever data you have on impact on winning? Doesnt reconcile in my mind but I love looking at that type of data
Padrino
All-Star
Happily. You can see what separates the Tyrese/Domas category from the upper echelon below (2024-2025 season):
Tyrese Haliburton
Usage Percentage: 21.4%
True Shooting Percentage: 61.6%
Win Shares: 10.4
Box Plus-Minus: 5.8
Value Over Replacement Player: 4.9
Player Efficiency Rating: 21.8
Domantas Sabonis
USG: 21.6%
TS: 65.5%
WS: 10.1
BPM: 5.2
VORP: 4.4
PER: 22.9
Nikola Jokic
USG: 29.5%
TS: 66.3%
WS: 16.4
BPM: 13.3
VORP: 9.8
PER: 32.0
Edit: tossed in PER for the hell of it.
ShastaKingsFan
All-Star
There's never any evidence that the Kings would be able to nail a rebuild. Does that mean that they shouldn't at least try one?
There's no certainty that promoting Doug Christie to head coach or bringing in DeRozan and Lavine will lead to any post season success. That doesn't prevent the owner from trying it.
Tizzy Flip
Starter
Thank you, really interesting. I’m also not saying we were wrong to trade for Sabonis. He’s a great players, I just hate who we gave up to get him. Looking at this, I can’t imagine how killer of a combo Hali and Sabonis would be.
I’ll add a stat Hali doesn’t get credit for which is the hockey assist. Since Pacers are such a great passing team, Hali will make the key initial pass that then leads to another pass to a wide open corner 3. That would drive up his PER and PIE if that was somehow accounted for. He does it better than anyone else
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
To be clear, I am advocating for a proper rebuild, so to your first point, yes, they should try one.
To your overall point, there was never any clear evidence that the front office should've stuck with Tyrese over Fox. They decided to stick with Fox, and what has happened since then now proves that they messed it all up. That's not to say that they wouldn't have messed it up if they had stuck with Tyrese instead. For all we know, we could've been in the same spot today even with Tyrese on the roster.
Padrino
All-Star
That's the problem with this argument amongst Kings fans; it's largely emotional, and not really rooted in statistical evidence. The Haliburton/Sabonis trade was referred to as a "win for both sides" upon completion, but truth be told, it was perhaps the most lateral trade in NBA history, with respect to the talent level and impact of the two primary players involved. Like I said, it's almost uncanny how similar they are in overall impact. But in the minds of many Kings fans today, the Pacers "won" the trade because they're in the Finals and the Kings are not, as if keeping Haliburton alone would have helped the Kings ascend to greater heights. His impact stats in a weak conference tell me that the Kings didn't trade a budding superstar. It tells me that, everything else being equal, the Kings would not necessarily be any better off had they kept Haliburton.
Of course, not everything else is equal, and we'll never know what kind of further roster decisions might have been made that could have improved the Kings' outlook had they kept Haliburton. What we do know is that they built a playoff team around De'Aaron Fox and Domantas Sabonis in a tough conference and then backslid as the rest of the conference either got healthier or leveled up. Tyrese, while an excellent player, is not an MVP-level talent that would have solved these problems by virtue of his retention alone.
Personally, I don't really allow myself to get caught up in the punditry and the narrative weaving that occurs in the wake of these kinds of moves. Everybody's after clicks and clout. Everybody wants to say they were hip to player X's ascension before everyone else. It feels good to say "I told you so", even if the data doesn't support the arrogant preening. That said, I understand the impulse amongst Kings fans to bemoan what's happening in Indiana. It would be easier to swallow Haliburton failing to help the Kings rise than watching him succeed elsewhere.
ShastaKingsFan
All-Star
In terms of character and leadership potential, there was. The Pacers organization identified it and many others did as well
Obviously you don't "throw in the towel" - but maybe you quit making overbroad and unsupportable comments such as "if we only kept Hali" because in doing so you are completely ignoring the great 2x all-star we got in return that immediately propelled us into the #3 seed and the playoffs for the first time in almost 2 decades. We were GOOD - and that was almost entirely Domas with a new coach. But we also didn't keep building on that when we had the chance (and, bizarrely, moved away from the free-flowing offense a bit). That's not on the trade and that's not on Domas. That's an ongoing team-building issue. We're focusing on the wrong problem here.
We can quibble about whether this player is better to build around or that player is better to build around, but as @Padrino pointed out - they are actually VERY similar in impact and advanced stats, with Domas playing in the much tougher west. Let's quit turning on our best players (as we tend to do over and over again when things don't work out).
Hali was a fan favorite. I really liked him as well. I'm not putting him down. I didn't want him to get traded. But there's got to be some sanity restored to the over-the-top bashing of some current (and former) players just to praise the generally good job our former backup guard is doing on a better-constructed team in a lesser conference.
Last edited:
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
In any Fox vs. Haliburton discussions we also have to realize that it's looking like Fox was super territorial when it came to the PG's that Monte drafted. Just sayin'. Fox didn't like the Kings going out and putting pressure on him like that, lol. Watch your back Stephon.
Similar threads
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Sacramento Kings News
- Personnel moves
