I understand the prompt but even in your first sentence you imply that Vivek is making the personnel decisions, not the GM he just hired to head the front office. Yes ultimately the buck stops with the guy in charge but how much do we really know about Vivek's preferences other than he likes shooters (Buddy Hield, Zach LaVine) and he wants the team to win? I think he'll jump on board with any group of players that can put Sacramento on the basketball map as a team worth watching. So my goal in this is to find the right mix of players who can accomplish that, even if it means taking some big swings and saying goodbye to some fan favorites. And if Scott Perry isn't prepared to do that than he shouldn't have taken the job. Because he will be fired if this team doesn't transform into a winner under his watch. That much we know for sure.
And I keep saying this over and over again and yet somehow it's not being understood -- I do not want this team to tank. I think trading Sabonis, DDR, Monk, and LaVine right now will make this a better basketball team not a worse one. The devil is in the details though in who the right players are to target in order to accomplish that. I don't disagree with your approach, I'm sure you're doing the same thing based on your player evaluations. I'm just commenting from my point of view that I don't personally think the strategy you've laid out here is going to work. We're still going to get dominated in the paint by bigger teams and we're heavily reliant on LaVine being a reliable first option scorer or some hypothetical superstar flying in from Deus Ex Machina land to save us.
In a macro sense…yes, I do think Vivek is making the personnel decisions from the standpoint that he has a general direction/path that he wants his team to take (compete now). I don’t think he is going to green lit a rebuild (which I think we should do at this point).
And I would consider your offseason idea a rebuild. You’re sending out Sabonis, DeRozan, & Monk and taking back young-ish role players and a couple 1sts. Personally, I’d prefer expirings and heavier pick packages and rely on our scouting department to find some diamonds in the rough and some star talent we can build around while also using that newly found cap space to acquire more assets.
We have all of our first round picks now. I think the likelihood of success with your roster is far lower than the likelihood of failure (obviously you disagree, hence the back and forth) so in Scenario #1 we lose the advantage of trading Sabonis on our terms which is not insignificant considering he's maybe the best trade asset we currently have.
Well not trading Sabonis on our terms is a Vivek issue not a twslam07 issue, right? I’ve already said this is not what I would do if I had complete control over the decisions. Vivek’s mandate is what is leading to this being a potential outcome. I can of course choose to ignore that mandate for the sake of the discussion board, but that doesn’t seem like a realistic conversation at this point in time.
This approach works for markets which attract established star players. Boston and LA get to do this. Miami, because of Spoelstra and Riley, get to do this. The Knicks get to do this. Attempting to do this in Sacramento has never worked out. No disgruntled superstar is going to put the Kings on their short list of acceptable trade destinations which means we're throwing away all of our assets for a short-term rental.
Why does a star need to be “disgruntled” for us to trade for him? Stars can simply become available if teams want to begin a rebuild (for example). They don’t have to be “disgruntled” so that point doesn’t really hold water for me. I mean let’s take your own advice here…you want to trade Sabonis on our terms (e.g., don’t let him get disgruntled and publicly ask out). So you can see how it’s a bid odd to say we’re only limited to disgruntled stars when trading while at the same proposing to trade a non-disgruntled star from our team.
So we're right back at Scenario 2 again, just a year further along the timeline (and a year closer to Perry and Christie getting fired). And we're still hoping for some hypothetical franchise altering star player to become available and consent to being traded to the Kings. Yes I know it eventually worked out with Chris Webber but that was 1 time in 40 years. Not great odds.
Without the option of rebuilding, how do you expect to bring a star talent here? We’re either trading for him or getting lucky and drafting one in the middle of the first round. I don’t see why that reality of the situation is perceived as a negative in the idea proposed.
Okay, sure but what have you really done here other than say we'll take Holiday from Boston plus a pick in exchange for Monk and then we'll somehow find a player who will make this into a good team. Who is that player? How do they fit with Holiday and Sabonis? What is the plan for Murray, Ellis, and Carter? You've barely mentioned them at all. Aren't they the players who still have some projected improvement left in their careers that should ideally be accounted for? When I read this I see another ESPN style take which basically assumes all players are static and teams only get better by adding known quantities to existing known quantities.
Don’t mistake not mentioning Murray, Ellis, and Carter as me assuming they won’t improve. The focus of the post is about what we’re changing, who we’re bringing in/sending out, and how to navigate the upcoming years with our cap situation.
Also, why do I need to disclose today who the player we’d target years from now with LaVine or Holiday’s salary? Come on now…you’re more reasonable than that. We both know how quickly things can change in the NBA and how someone that seemed untouchable just last year is not all of a sudden available.
The overall point of the trade is that it keeps us flexible and in a position to strike when a player of a certain caliber and fit become available.
If you've read one of my trade proposals, every one of them is about finding talent which has not peaked yet and correctly identifying which of those players might grow into star players on our team and thus hopefully feel enough loyalty to the cause to continue their careers here once they have the name recognition. Obviously there's going to be disagreement whether my player picks are any good or not but ultimately we don't know because whatever they will be at their peak, they're not there yet.
Perhaps you think Devin Vassell, Keldon Johnson, Isaiah Stewart, and Ron Holland can become stars, but I certainly don’t. And maybe that’s a point of contention for us because I see your idea as us trading for youngish role players and you see it as trading for players that can develop into stars. That’s a huge chasm between us.
More toughness and physicality at the PF position than DeRozan is a pretty low bar to reach. Are we trying to win 45 games next season or 55? Because the Monte McNair / Mike Brown pairing won 48 and 46 games in consecutive seasons and that was not good enough to save their jobs. Based on your own premise (what does Vivek want) I think your plan doesn't allow our new GM and coach to keep their jobs either.
It might be a low bar to reach but you’re failing to recognize how much tougher and physical he really is (that matters). I’d also say that Marshall plays with more physicality and toughness than Murray too.
I wouldn’t say the goal is to win 55 games with my proposed roster. The goal is to be better next year without sacrificing the future. Then you pop your head up and see if a Lavine + assets type of trade for a star is available and you have the same opportunity to do that again with Holiday the following season.
We’re not jumping to winning 55 games without landing someone that is better than Sabonis. And if that’s the case (and you still have a win now mandate from Vivek), how can you potentially do that? You put yourself in a position to be able to make a trade for that type of player which requires flexibility and retaining your young assets/picks. My proposed offer does just that.
