Let’s look at the Jazz. They got a bunch of vets that can hit the 3, Gobert a DPOY, and a vet guard next to Mitchell. If you replace Donovan with Fox that team would still be very successful. They’ve got basically the same stats and both can’t shoot that well. We cant expect a 23 year old to lead this team. Fox is by far the best player on this team and the dude went 30/9 for a whole month last season and we still couldn’t win. Fox needs help.
What is up with De'Aaron Fox?
- Thread starter Singhisking
- Start date
bruh we know Fox can score lol. Put him on the Jazz and they still winning games. Fox needs help. Making Fox the scapegoat and trading him isn’t gonna work. This franchise is just run extremely poorly. How many little/big blunders has this franchise had that screwed everything up.
- should have had Dame (Dame thought it was a guarantee he was coming to Sac
- didn’t re-sign IT but signed Carl Landry a 3 year contract
- didn’t draft CJ even though we brought him for 3 workouts
- drafted 2 guards while we have a potential star in Fox (while I don’t disagree with drafting BPA this doesn’t give much help to Fox)
we gotta stop getting rid of our best players and build around them instead.
side note- we could have had Boogie, Dame, IT, Collision, and Gay on the same team. That team was a guaranteed playoff spot. This franchise just sucks specifically Vivek
- should have had Dame (Dame thought it was a guarantee he was coming to Sac
- didn’t re-sign IT but signed Carl Landry a 3 year contract
- didn’t draft CJ even though we brought him for 3 workouts
- drafted 2 guards while we have a potential star in Fox (while I don’t disagree with drafting BPA this doesn’t give much help to Fox)
we gotta stop getting rid of our best players and build around them instead.
side note- we could have had Boogie, Dame, IT, Collision, and Gay on the same team. That team was a guaranteed playoff spot. This franchise just sucks specifically Vivek
Yes Utah won 48 games in Donovan Mitchell's rookie season, but they also won 51 games the season before with (Kingsfan favorite) George Hill as their starting PG. It's similar to the NFL where well-run teams can turn undrafted players into productive NFL players but poorly-run teams draft "busts" all the time with their top picks. The system matters.
Bruh we've been trying to build around Fox for 4 years. We passed on Luka because we didn't want to take the ball out of Fox's hands (which mind you, might not have been wrong given the excuses thrown around for Fox's play this year). Even if I agreed with you that Fox could be the #1 guy on the Jazz (which I don't), the issue is that we aren't getting to the Jazz roster if we continue to be mediocre. Mike Conley and Rudy Gobert aren't walkin through the door. It isn't a issue so much about Fox's value in a vacuum as it is about roster construction given current assets. It isn't about scapegoating; we need to take emotion out of it and say how do we realistically get better?
And here is where my belief is - it is a lot easier to:
1) Find good-scoring guards. I'm sorry, but Fox's skillset while valuable, isn't unique.
2) Not have to build around a PG that is neither a great playmaker, nor a good shooter. This reduces your dependency on needing to find a stretch big, who tend to not be great paint protectors.
So let Tyrese and Mitchell be the PGs going forward, see if you can move Fox for a different piece (e.g. a wing) and ultimately replace his scoring with a more traditional scoring guard that is an outside threat.
And here is where my belief is - it is a lot easier to:
1) Find good-scoring guards. I'm sorry, but Fox's skillset while valuable, isn't unique.
2) Not have to build around a PG that is neither a great playmaker, nor a good shooter. This reduces your dependency on needing to find a stretch big, who tend to not be great paint protectors.
So let Tyrese and Mitchell be the PGs going forward, see if you can move Fox for a different piece (e.g. a wing) and ultimately replace his scoring with a more traditional scoring guard that is an outside threat.
I don't disagree, I'm not making any claims that Fox would not have been as good as Mitchell were he drafted by the Jazz instead of the Kings, because we frankly can't prove that. I'm just stating facts - Mitchell "led" the team to 48 wins his rookie season as a 21 year old scoring 20ppg while Fox scored 11ppg on a 27 win team. And then went on to be a multiple time all star on winning teams while Fox hasn't cracked 40 wins or any form of formal recognition via all star/all NBA. Again, nothing personal, just laying out the facts.
And with that in mind, I don't think you can in good faith tell me that any team in the NBA today, given a choice between Fox and Mitchell, would take Fox. At some point, you can't keep playing hypotheticals and whatifs. I think that does a huge discredit to the guys who actually achieve things, whether or not their situations were better to begin with.
To contextualize this, lets relate it to everyday life we experience. There are lots of "successful" people who were born with silver spoons and now lead large companies. Meanwhile, there are tons of other folk who might not have had the privilege of being able to afford an ivy league education, but who demonstrate great leadership in their own situations. Had they been afforded the same opportunities, maybe they would have done just as well as the "successful" folks. At the end of the day though, you don't say that ol' Joe down the block could run XXX company like Mr Bigshot.
And with that in mind, I don't think you can in good faith tell me that any team in the NBA today, given a choice between Fox and Mitchell, would take Fox. At some point, you can't keep playing hypotheticals and whatifs. I think that does a huge discredit to the guys who actually achieve things, whether or not their situations were better to begin with.
To contextualize this, lets relate it to everyday life we experience. There are lots of "successful" people who were born with silver spoons and now lead large companies. Meanwhile, there are tons of other folk who might not have had the privilege of being able to afford an ivy league education, but who demonstrate great leadership in their own situations. Had they been afforded the same opportunities, maybe they would have done just as well as the "successful" folks. At the end of the day though, you don't say that ol' Joe down the block could run XXX company like Mr Bigshot.
Last edited:
Anyway, I'm done arguing for today, if that's what you can even call the quality of debate around here. My conclusions for the day are:
1) Buddy Hield is as good as Klay Thompson, not his fault he wasn't drafted by the Warriors. More importantly, we should treat him as such.
2) Fox is a lizard person - what, do you expect him to openly admit it?
3) Ownership bad.
1) Buddy Hield is as good as Klay Thompson, not his fault he wasn't drafted by the Warriors. More importantly, we should treat him as such.
2) Fox is a lizard person - what, do you expect him to openly admit it?
3) Ownership bad.
Mike Conley came to Utah in a trade when he was already in his 30s. Rudy Gobert was drafted 27th overall. Neither is an argument for why sticking with Fox prevents us from putting good pieces around him.
There's all sorts of valid reasons to criticize Fox's play this season but failing to transform a losing franchise into a successful one does not fall on his shoulders nor do I think Mitchell finding instant success on a winning team that knew exactly what type of player they were looking for and surrounded him with all sorts of complimentary talent means he was always destined for greatness. It's a particularly human failing to see time as a linear series of causes and effects whereby the factuality of the present moment retroactively implies inevitably. We don't know what would have happened if their situations were reversed, we only know what did happen. What might have happened is a judgement call and there's nothing objective or realistic about anyone's answer to that kind of question.
Here's what I think will happen... the growing volume of white noise about Fox's failings coming from the more reactionary and outspoken segment of the fanbase will continue to grow and our equally reactionary and often shortsighted owner will listen to them. It's easy to blame Fox when he's the guy with the big contract who's been here for 4 years of losing and we have two younger, cheaper guards with better advanced stats (who have the added advantage of being drafted by our current GM) ready to replace him. We won't get much for him because of said contract and because we will have driven his value down by telegraphing to the world that we think he's expendable but those same fans will convince themselves it's addition by subtraction anyway. We will then continue hoping a lottery pick will transform us while systematically unloading every former lottery pick on the roster once they too fail to transform the entire franchise by sheer force of will and they have the audacity to expect to be paid a market value contract to play in a city that the majority of the country couldn't even find on a map.
The alternative... acknowledging that no player is perfect and you build a winning team by collecting players whose strengths and weaknesses compliment each other and putting the money and effort into state of the art player development personnel and technology.. requires actual work and the trouble with being a losing franchise is that you haven't even learned yet what actual work is.
Personally, I don't think success has anything to do with a person's ability to make money or run a business but I feel I'm likely in the minority with that opinion, especially in this country. I would take Fox right now over Mitchell 10 times out of 10 and hope that I could help him work his way out of whatever funk he's currently in because I think loyalty matters and I don't give up on people. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you do. I'm just trying to convey that being "objective" or "dispassionate" or "realistic" in your decisions implies a certain value system which is not universal. I would argue that our current owner (who we all agree has been the only common denominator in the post-Maloof treadmill of mediocrity) prides himself on being a quick-thinker who is dispassionate and realistic in his decision making and he has the bank account to back it up. I would also argue that exactly that approach has kept this franchise in perpetual turmoil to the point where the passion of what was once an exceptionally passionate and engaged fanbase may be irreperably damaged.
If your answer to the question "what's up with DeAaron Fox" is to unceremoniously kick him to the curb mere weeks into his reign as the highest paid player on the Kings for failing to meet your lofty standards I think you have a lot more in common with our disastrously fickle owner than you would care to admit. I'm sure you're both more successful within your value system than I am though so I hope you won't take this as as an attempted burn. The world is big enough for different people to hold different value systems. I disagree respectfully with your assessment of the situation and if it were up to me I would approach the problem by hiring a new head coach with a proven track record and a defensive emphasis and I would be clear to all of the players that if they put in the work to improve the team's defense and they play with intensity every game that we will take care of them.
There's all sorts of valid reasons to criticize Fox's play this season but failing to transform a losing franchise into a successful one does not fall on his shoulders nor do I think Mitchell finding instant success on a winning team that knew exactly what type of player they were looking for and surrounded him with all sorts of complimentary talent means he was always destined for greatness. It's a particularly human failing to see time as a linear series of causes and effects whereby the factuality of the present moment retroactively implies inevitably. We don't know what would have happened if their situations were reversed, we only know what did happen. What might have happened is a judgement call and there's nothing objective or realistic about anyone's answer to that kind of question.
Here's what I think will happen... the growing volume of white noise about Fox's failings coming from the more reactionary and outspoken segment of the fanbase will continue to grow and our equally reactionary and often shortsighted owner will listen to them. It's easy to blame Fox when he's the guy with the big contract who's been here for 4 years of losing and we have two younger, cheaper guards with better advanced stats (who have the added advantage of being drafted by our current GM) ready to replace him. We won't get much for him because of said contract and because we will have driven his value down by telegraphing to the world that we think he's expendable but those same fans will convince themselves it's addition by subtraction anyway. We will then continue hoping a lottery pick will transform us while systematically unloading every former lottery pick on the roster once they too fail to transform the entire franchise by sheer force of will and they have the audacity to expect to be paid a market value contract to play in a city that the majority of the country couldn't even find on a map.
The alternative... acknowledging that no player is perfect and you build a winning team by collecting players whose strengths and weaknesses compliment each other and putting the money and effort into state of the art player development personnel and technology.. requires actual work and the trouble with being a losing franchise is that you haven't even learned yet what actual work is.
Personally, I don't think success has anything to do with a person's ability to make money or run a business but I feel I'm likely in the minority with that opinion, especially in this country. I would take Fox right now over Mitchell 10 times out of 10 and hope that I could help him work his way out of whatever funk he's currently in because I think loyalty matters and I don't give up on people. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you do. I'm just trying to convey that being "objective" or "dispassionate" or "realistic" in your decisions implies a certain value system which is not universal. I would argue that our current owner (who we all agree has been the only common denominator in the post-Maloof treadmill of mediocrity) prides himself on being a quick-thinker who is dispassionate and realistic in his decision making and he has the bank account to back it up. I would also argue that exactly that approach has kept this franchise in perpetual turmoil to the point where the passion of what was once an exceptionally passionate and engaged fanbase may be irreperably damaged.
If your answer to the question "what's up with DeAaron Fox" is to unceremoniously kick him to the curb mere weeks into his reign as the highest paid player on the Kings for failing to meet your lofty standards I think you have a lot more in common with our disastrously fickle owner than you would care to admit. I'm sure you're both more successful within your value system than I am though so I hope you won't take this as as an attempted burn. The world is big enough for different people to hold different value systems. I disagree respectfully with your assessment of the situation and if it were up to me I would approach the problem by hiring a new head coach with a proven track record and a defensive emphasis and I would be clear to all of the players that if they put in the work to improve the team's defense and they play with intensity every game that we will take care of them.
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to respond with your thoughts. Few things from me:
1. I simply used the anecdote of a "successful" person because it's something most should understand - as you say it's a popular opinion. I even added the " " marks so you shouldn't take away that I necessarily agree with that definition.
2. FWIW, I've maintained my position that Fox is not a #1 guy since last season, even when he was putting up stats. My position is well documented over the off-season, where I was coming across as Fox hater, well before Fox even played a game this season. I've maintained that we shouldn't shouldn't have treated him as untouchable when the Simmons trade proposals were first out there, with the caveat that at most I would give him this season (year 5) to actually prove he is an all star.
3. Could you help me better understand your point on loyalty and how it relates to the discussion we're having on Fox?
4. I actually agree with you 100% on your statement that "no player is perfect and you build a winning team by collecting players whose strengths and weaknesses compliment each other". The problem is, I don't see how this then translates to Fox being untouchable. I mean, what you've described is literally the reason why some such as myself have proposed trading Fox, perhaps for Simmons or some other player. If fans indeed recognized that no player is perfect, then why should player be untouchable? I've summarized my basic thinking quite clearly - Fox does not seem to compliment other pieces easily because he's a ball-dominant score-first PG, who isn't a good playmaker and isn't a consistent outside threat. Meanwhile, we have Tyrese and Davion who look like they could blossom in the PG role, so why wouldn't you consider trading Fox in order to collect players whose strengths and weaknesses compliment them? Why is it your argument only seems to apply to Fox, and not to Barnes, not to Buddy (who by the way, is the longest tenured King on the roster) etc.? Surely you don't mean to say that we must hold on to every player we draft?
5. What exactly do you think are my lofty standards for a max player? What are your standards for a max player, or does the money not matter?
6. What timeline are you working on with said new head coach? Say we hire him this offseason, when do you then expect us to make the playoffs? Are you giving him 2 years to implement his system and change the culture?
7. Don't you realise that your argument and idea once again ultimately revolves around the core belief that DeAaron is the franchise guy? Surround HIM with good pieces. And again and again I come back to this which I've harped on all offseason - Why, Why, Why? And again and again, I'm given answers like "if you can't see it you're dumb", or "honestly I don't care, Fox is my guy and wants to be here so I roll with him". Or people point to 25/7; and I say ok but it's on a losing team - and people say well put good pieces around him then (CIRCULAR ARGUMENT). People say well he'd be an all-star if the West wasn't so darn competitive. People say put DeAaron on the Jazz and they'd be just fine, and yet nobody can tell me with a straight face that the Jazz would trade Mitchell for DeAaron and a pick. Do you understand my frustration? There is absolutely no way to take Fox off this franchise player pedestal you've put him on no matter what I try to argue. When he puts up stats and the team loses, I'm told it's the fault of the coach, of not having good pieces. When he fails to put up stats, you tell me I have lofty standards. So what exactly would cause you to reconsider whether or not DeAaron is the franchise guy, bearing in mind that we are paying him a MAX CONTRACT.
8. Finally, why is it that wanting to trade Fox is interpreted as scapegoating him, or that we're pinning the fall of the franchise on his shoulders? It's just about trying to make the team better. That's all. If you told me that tomorrow we're trading Buddy Hield and Harrison Barnes for Kevin Durant then ok sure, don't trade Fox.
1. I simply used the anecdote of a "successful" person because it's something most should understand - as you say it's a popular opinion. I even added the " " marks so you shouldn't take away that I necessarily agree with that definition.
2. FWIW, I've maintained my position that Fox is not a #1 guy since last season, even when he was putting up stats. My position is well documented over the off-season, where I was coming across as Fox hater, well before Fox even played a game this season. I've maintained that we shouldn't shouldn't have treated him as untouchable when the Simmons trade proposals were first out there, with the caveat that at most I would give him this season (year 5) to actually prove he is an all star.
3. Could you help me better understand your point on loyalty and how it relates to the discussion we're having on Fox?
4. I actually agree with you 100% on your statement that "no player is perfect and you build a winning team by collecting players whose strengths and weaknesses compliment each other". The problem is, I don't see how this then translates to Fox being untouchable. I mean, what you've described is literally the reason why some such as myself have proposed trading Fox, perhaps for Simmons or some other player. If fans indeed recognized that no player is perfect, then why should player be untouchable? I've summarized my basic thinking quite clearly - Fox does not seem to compliment other pieces easily because he's a ball-dominant score-first PG, who isn't a good playmaker and isn't a consistent outside threat. Meanwhile, we have Tyrese and Davion who look like they could blossom in the PG role, so why wouldn't you consider trading Fox in order to collect players whose strengths and weaknesses compliment them? Why is it your argument only seems to apply to Fox, and not to Barnes, not to Buddy (who by the way, is the longest tenured King on the roster) etc.? Surely you don't mean to say that we must hold on to every player we draft?
5. What exactly do you think are my lofty standards for a max player? What are your standards for a max player, or does the money not matter?
6. What timeline are you working on with said new head coach? Say we hire him this offseason, when do you then expect us to make the playoffs? Are you giving him 2 years to implement his system and change the culture?
7. Don't you realise that your argument and idea once again ultimately revolves around the core belief that DeAaron is the franchise guy? Surround HIM with good pieces. And again and again I come back to this which I've harped on all offseason - Why, Why, Why? And again and again, I'm given answers like "if you can't see it you're dumb", or "honestly I don't care, Fox is my guy and wants to be here so I roll with him". Or people point to 25/7; and I say ok but it's on a losing team - and people say well put good pieces around him then (CIRCULAR ARGUMENT). People say well he'd be an all-star if the West wasn't so darn competitive. People say put DeAaron on the Jazz and they'd be just fine, and yet nobody can tell me with a straight face that the Jazz would trade Mitchell for DeAaron and a pick. Do you understand my frustration? There is absolutely no way to take Fox off this franchise player pedestal you've put him on no matter what I try to argue. When he puts up stats and the team loses, I'm told it's the fault of the coach, of not having good pieces. When he fails to put up stats, you tell me I have lofty standards. So what exactly would cause you to reconsider whether or not DeAaron is the franchise guy, bearing in mind that we are paying him a MAX CONTRACT.
8. Finally, why is it that wanting to trade Fox is interpreted as scapegoating him, or that we're pinning the fall of the franchise on his shoulders? It's just about trying to make the team better. That's all. If you told me that tomorrow we're trading Buddy Hield and Harrison Barnes for Kevin Durant then ok sure, don't trade Fox.
Last edited:
I heard the same about Cousins and when he teamed up with AD the Pelicans went no where until Cousins season ended due to injury and Mirotic came in and they went on a run
Yeah lets not mention Gordan Hayward in his absolute prime who left them and everyone thought the Jazz were a lottery team and a rookie Mitchell helped them win 3 games less than prime Hayward/Hill did. Interesting you left out Gordan Hayward from that (who they were planning to max out).
Yeah lets not mention Gordan Hayward in his absolute prime who left them and everyone thought the Jazz were a lottery team and a rookie Mitchell helped them win 3 games less than prime Hayward/Hill did. Interesting you left out Gordan Hayward from that (who they were planning to max out).
I believe this is the quote that started the debate.
You guys keep countering an implied yes or no question with another question. If you put fox on the Utah jazz in place of Mitchell, would he and the jazz still be successful? No one is asking about trading or who’s better. The question revolves around the idea that if you surround fox with a better cast would he still thrive and would the team still be as good. I believe the answer is yes. Answering the question with another totally different question seems like you know the answer and don’t want to admit it.
You guys keep countering an implied yes or no question with another question. If you put fox on the Utah jazz in place of Mitchell, would he and the jazz still be successful? No one is asking about trading or who’s better. The question revolves around the idea that if you surround fox with a better cast would he still thrive and would the team still be as good. I believe the answer is yes. Answering the question with another totally different question seems like you know the answer and don’t want to admit it.
My view of Fox is time stamped and consistent. His ceiling is not that of an elite player, hence why I wanted to trade him for an elite, but flawed talent over the summer. Strip away the pace inflated stats, focus on the on the court play (high octane 1Hs followed by total collapses in the 2h), and look at the record. That’s not going to change regardless of who the coach is. His shortcomings this year just makes what was already obvious, even more so.
Can’t say I disagree too much … that said I haven’t been as vocal; and I’ve also waivered because of his ultra hot streaks, but I always thought maxing out a non-shooter guard as very risky, but also necessary for Sacramento move. He’s definitely nowhere near untouchable if there’s smart deals to be had.