What about Bogs?

#31
Then that's the core. I would include that trio in my core as well. I keep debating with myself whether Buddy should be in this strict core or not. With shooting being at such a premium in the NBA, it's hard to exclude him.
I would. His age compared to the others makes it difficult to call him a part of the "young" core, but unlike Bogi and Barnes, he's too good to worry about how he might age along the aforementioned trio and should be just fine when the rest of them enter their prime.

Let's face it, not all six of their most important players currently will be here in five years. Bogi will likely be traded sometime in his second contract and Barnes if he resigns here will probably be the same. Buddy on the other hand I could see sticking here until the end of his second contract.
 
Last edited:
#32
I would. His age compared to the others makes it difficult to call him a part of the "young" core, but unlike Bogi and Barnes, he's too good to worry about how he might age along the aforementioned trio and should be just fine when the rest of them enter their prime.

Let's face it, not all six of their most important players currently won't be here in five years. Bogi will likely be traded sometime in his second contract and Barnes if he resigns here will probably be the same. Buddy on the other hand I could see sticking here until the end of his second contract.
Plus Buddy's game isn't reliant on athleticism so he could potentially have a longer prime than most players.
 
#33
Then that's the core. I would include that trio in my core as well. I keep debating with myself whether Buddy should be in this strict core or not. With shooting being at such a premium in the NBA, it's hard to exclude him.
Being part of the core & being on the no trade list are 2 different things. I consider both Hield and Bogie as part of the core, but would part ways if the right deal was offered.
 
#35
To me the core is made of the key players that the team is built around. Right now, I would consider that to be Fox, Hield, Bogie, Bagley & Giles. I would have no problem putting Barnes on that list (just think it is too early). The only players I wouldn't consider trading are Fox & Bagley. Giles might get added, but isn't there yet.
 
#36
I have a different definition of core, but I'll just use your guys example. I do think Bogdan can be a big part of this team moving forward, but it'll have to be him coming off the bench.
Last year the gap between Bogdan and Buddy was very little as we had many discussions on who should be the starter vs. 6th man. I believed that it really depended on Fox and whether or not he was going to be comfortable running an offense. We saw Fox struggle to facilitate in the half-court in his rookie year. This is why I would've been fine with Bogdan starting. His playmaking ability would've helped Fox a lot. Fast forward to this season and Fox has improved tremendously as a playmaker being top 10 in assists of the entire NBA. That need for Bogdan as a starter diminished. Buddy Hield also vastly improved his scoring ability becoming our best player last season. On the other hand, Bogdan regressed. Maybe this regression is related to injuries, or maybe it's just the effect of giving him a bigger role on offense. In the end, I think we can all agree that Bogdan's role on this team is not a starter.

So the question I've always had with Bogdan is whether or not he's willing to accept this 6th man role off the bench for the Kings. Is he committed to this? At the same time, are we going to be prepared to extend him in FA?

I want Bogdan as a future part of this team. In the end, I think it'll come down to how he feels about his role with this team knowing he could get a bigger role elsewhere maybe. Actually, I'm not sure if he gets a bigger elsewhere. I think he's probably a 6th man for most of the teams in the NBA.
 
Last edited:

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#37
Then that's the core. I would include that trio in my core as well. I keep debating with myself whether Buddy should be in this strict core or not. With shooting being at such a premium in the NBA, it's hard to exclude him.
I went with my top 3. If push came to shove, it might be Fox and Bagley dead locks with Giles and Buddy interchangeable for the third. Tough call to make, but those 4 would absolutely be the only hills I'd pick to die on.
 
#38
Core and untouchables are very different and you seem to be confusing the two. Core is a group of 5 or 6 players who consistently make up the team. That doesn’t mean that they are untouchable.

Kings in their prime had a core of 6-7 guys but each one of those players could be had if the right deal was offered that could make us better. Someone like JWill was part of the core but he was traded for an upgrade. Guys like Bobby and Doug and even Bibby were part of the core but if they were to return an upgrade in talent, they sure would have been moved.

Hedo was part of the core but he was traded along with Pollard for Miller.

Core is a group of players that make up The basis of the team. It’s generally 5-7 deep. Those players generally fit well and will stay together for a while but it doesn’t mean that they are untouchables.

There are franchise level players (eg. Webber)
Perennial All-Star level players (eg. Webber)
All-Star level players (eg Peja)
Borderline All-Star level players (eg Mike Bibby)
Important players for the make up of the team
Interchangeable pieces (those that can change year to year)

I always saw someone like Bruce Bowen as part of the core of the great Spurts team but it doesn’t mean that if Spurs need to include him in the trade to get an upgrade that they would not have.

This team has the following:
Potential Franchise Level / Perennial All-Star level players in Fox and Bagley.

Potential All-star level players in Buddy and Giles

Borderline All-Star Level (maybe...maybe Bogi)
Important players for the make up of the team (Bogi and Barnes)

So from my perspective the core is Fox, Bagley, Buddy, Barnes, Giles and Bogi.

That’s really 6 players. Maybe Fox and Bagley are untouchables (if they become true franchise level players). Everyone is else is important but not untouchable. If PHX came to us and said give us Hield for Booker, I am pretty sure we pull the trigger on that move. It doesn’t make Buddy any less important to us going forward.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#39
Core and untouchables are very different and you seem to be confusing the two. Core is a group of 5 or 6 players who consistently make up the team. That doesn’t mean that they are untouchable.

Kings in their prime had a core of 6-7 guys but each one of those players could be had if the right deal was offered that could make us better. Someone like JWill was part of the core but he was traded for an upgrade. Guys like Bobby and Doug and even Bibby were part of the core but if they were to return an upgrade in talent, they sure would have been moved.

Hedo was part of the core but he was traded along with Pollard for Miller.

Core is a group of players that make up The basis of the team. It’s generally 5-7 deep. Those players generally fit well and will stay together for a while but it doesn’t mean that they are untouchables.

There are franchise level players (eg. Webber)
Perennial All-Star level players (eg. Webber)
All-Star level players (eg Peja)
Borderline All-Star level players (eg Mike Bibby)
Important players for the make up of the team
Interchangeable pieces (those that can change year to year)

I always saw someone like Bruce Bowen as part of the core of the great Spurts team but it doesn’t mean that if Spurs need to include him in the trade to get an upgrade that they would not have.

This team has the following:
Potential Franchise Level / Perennial All-Star level players in Fox and Bagley.

Potential All-star level players in Buddy and Giles

Borderline All-Star Level (maybe...maybe Bogi)
Important players for the make up of the team (Bogi and Barnes)

So from my perspective the core is Fox, Bagley, Buddy, Barnes, Giles and Bogi.

That’s really 6 players. Maybe Fox and Bagley are untouchables (if they become true franchise level players). Everyone is else is important but not untouchable. If PHX came to us and said give us Hield for Booker, I am pretty sure we pull the trigger on that move. It doesn’t make Buddy any less important to us going forward.
I almost hate to disagree because you put a lot of thought and effort into your post, but your initial premise is/can be misleading.

"Core" can mean what you say it means. It can also mean the center group of players upon which your team will be built. It can be 5 or 6 players, it can be 3 players, it can be one. AFAIC, if I define someone as a "core" player, they're pretty much untouchable because, by my definition, I'm going to be building my team around them.

This is an interesting discussion. I have one problem that would prevent me most likely from being an effective GM. If I had a player whose very presence was a strength of the team, I would have trouble trading that player. His status as an all-star player or even a starter might not be as important as the intangibles he brings. I personally would rather have someone like than have a player of minimal NBA talent who takes up our 14th roster spot. But that's just me.
 

HndsmCelt

Hall of Famer
#40
At the end of last season I would have called Bogie untouchable and part of the core this team needs to build from. I have different feeling this season but I will say this I don't think he was 100% and I would definitely want to see you one more year before I drew too many conclusions about how integral he is to the future of this team.
 
Last edited:

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#41
I almost hate to disagree because you put a lot of thought and effort into your post, but your initial premise is/can be misleading.

"Core" can mean what you say it means. It can also mean the center group of players upon which your team will be built. It can be 5 or 6 players, it can be 3 players, it can be one. AFAIC, if I define someone as a "core" player, they're pretty much untouchable because, by my definition, I'm going to be building my team around them.

This is an interesting discussion. I have one problem that would prevent me most likely from being an effective GM. If I had a player whose very presence was a strength of the team, I would have trouble trading that player. His status as an all-star player or even a starter might not be as important as the intangibles he brings. I personally would rather have someone like than have a player of minimal NBA talent who takes up our 14th roster spot. But that's just me.
I think the definition of core, can be somewhat ambiguous. It can mean different things to different people, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. It's like someone saying that his home is far away. That can mean 5 or 6 miles if your walking, or it can mean a couple of thousand miles if your flying. Does it really matter? So in my mind, everyone on this forum is right with his or her personal definition. Nice discussion though!
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#42
There will be different definitions of "core." Some may see core as the core rotation. Others, such as myself, will see it as the key group of players to build around going forward (the untradables). Neither is necessarily correct or incorrect. All that is required is to define the term as you see it so that the discussion is not confused by different meanings in the term.
 
#43
There will be different definitions of "core." Some may see core as the core rotation. Others, such as myself, will see it as the key group of players to build around going forward (the untradables). Neither is necessarily correct or incorrect. All that is required is to define the term as you see it so that the discussion is not confused by different meanings in the term.
That's so generous of you. What have you done with Kingster??
 
#44
There will be different definitions of "core." Some may see core as the core rotation. Others, such as myself, will see it as the key group of players to build around going forward (the untradables). Neither is necessarily correct or incorrect. All that is required is to define the term as you see it so that the discussion is not confused by different meanings in the term.
But are there ever really untradeables?

Everyone has a price and every player even though they might be considered untradeable, could be had if the offer from the team is just too good to refuse.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#45
But are there ever really untradeables?

Everyone has a price and every player even though they might be considered untradeable, could be had if the offer from the team is just too good to refuse.
Theoretically, nobody is untradeable. Practically speaking, there are untradeables. Kareem was traded and AD probably will be traded, but these are the exceptions to the rule, and are done under great duress and not voluntarily. Sure, if the Bucks offered the Greek Freek for Bagley over the summer, Vlade would agree, but that's never going to happen. When you build a team you have to build it around what is probable going forward, not improbable. Therefore, you aren't going to build around improbable scenarios in which Fox or Bagley are traded.