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.