Fox to Minnesota

[ReggiesKnicks]

seems pretty terrible for the spurs. Mcdaniels seem like a high end role player type guy, which is great but without something additional going to the spurs I don't think this makes sense for them at all.

Fox didn't get traded for nearly as much as he should have been when the kings sent him to the spurs because he dictated exactly where he was willing to sign an extension so the kings were handcuffed as far as what value we could get at the time. Just because his value was depressed by those actions doesn't mean that his value is actually that low.

You stopped your thought half-way through.

Fox didn't get traded for nearly as much as he should have been when the kings sent him to the spurs because he dictated exactly where he was willing to sign an extension so the kings were handcuffed as far as what value we could get at the time

You say Fox depressed his value due to wanting to go to only San Antonio, right? What makes Fox' value more now?

[Reardonwd]

I think Minnesota has to include dillingham or something else to sweeten this a bit, but I do like the outcome. I think the spurs really want to move in on getting Garland if he’s available, or maybe even Jaylen brown or Trae Young in order to provide some shot creation that isn’t as capped at league average efficiency, so I do like them getting off Fox as I don’t think Fox + Garland is a good outcome. They can then choose to move either McDaniels or Vassell to Cleveland, whichever they prefer.

[penbeast0]

I think Minnesota has to include dillingham or something else to sweeten this a bit, but I do like the outcome. I think the spurs really want to move in on getting Garland if he’s available, or maybe even Jaylen brown or Trae Young in order to provide some shot creation that isn’t as capped at league average efficiency, so I do like them getting off Fox as I don’t think Fox + Garland is a good outcome. They can then choose to move either McDaniels or Vassell to Cleveland, whichever they prefer.

As one of the primary reasons for doing this is to free up a path for Dylan Harper with Castle and Vassell, I don't really see Garland being the target unless they are using one of those three as the main piece of a Garland deal. If McDaniel is the main guy coming back, then they are rating him quite highly and presumably want to keep him to give a defensive counterpart to Wemby as Harper or Vassell (or Garland) would be the offensive counterpart.

[Reardonwd]

I understand that going in with Harper and Castle as their starting guards feels more elegant, but since the spurs have the pieces and the talent to compete now I think having a proven on-ball offensive guard would be best. Harper profiles as a high-octane low-efficiency guard that would suffer next to castle, who profiles more as a connective piece than a primary playmaker himself. Garland next to either is a nice pairing,

[longfellow44]

seems pretty terrible for the spurs. Mcdaniels seem like a high end role player type guy, which is great but without something additional going to the spurs I don't think this makes sense for them at all.

Fox didn't get traded for nearly as much as he should have been when the kings sent him to the spurs because he dictated exactly where he was willing to sign an extension so the kings were handcuffed as far as what value we could get at the time. Just because his value was depressed by those actions doesn't mean that his value is actually that low.

You stopped your thought half-way through.

Fox didn't get traded for nearly as much as he should have been when the kings sent him to the spurs because he dictated exactly where he was willing to sign an extension so the kings were handcuffed as far as what value we could get at the time

You say Fox depressed his value due to wanting to go to only San Antonio, right? What makes Fox' value more now?

Fox likely wouldn't pull that a second time, it would make him look really bad with the public, and he knows he already hurt is reputation. He spent a decent amount of time after the trade trying to justify the situation and prove that he wasn't the bad guy, so we know he cares about public opinion.

So without him trying to force his way to another team his value should be higher than what the kings got.

I'm not trying to defend the value of fox because he was a kings player, In fact after the crap he pulled I'm happy he isn't a king anymore, I'm just trying to chime in with what I see as over valuing role players.

[ReggiesKnicks]

seems pretty terrible for the spurs. Mcdaniels seem like a high end role player type guy, which is great but without something additional going to the spurs I don't think this makes sense for them at all.

Fox didn't get traded for nearly as much as he should have been when the kings sent him to the spurs because he dictated exactly where he was willing to sign an extension so the kings were handcuffed as far as what value we could get at the time. Just because his value was depressed by those actions doesn't mean that his value is actually that low.

You stopped your thought half-way through.

Fox didn't get traded for nearly as much as he should have been when the kings sent him to the spurs because he dictated exactly where he was willing to sign an extension so the kings were handcuffed as far as what value we could get at the time

You say Fox depressed his value due to wanting to go to only San Antonio, right? What makes Fox' value more now?

Fox likely wouldn't pull that a second time, it would make him look really bad with the public, and he knows he already hurt is reputation. He spent a decent amount of time after the trade trying to justify the situation and prove that he wasn't the bad guy, so we know he cares about public opinion.

But he has done it once

[babyjax13]

FWIW we don't know how Harper affects Fox's or the Spurs' preferences. Diplomatically sending him to a contender (likely with an agreement for an extension) could be every party's preferred outcome.

[shrink]

You stopped your thought half-way through.



You say Fox depressed his value due to wanting to go to only San Antonio, right? What makes Fox' value more now?

Fox likely wouldn't pull that a second time, it would make him look really bad with the public, and he knows he already hurt is reputation. He spent a decent amount of time after the trade trying to justify the situation and prove that he wasn't the bad guy, so we know he cares about public opinion.

But he has done it once

And he’s clearly anxious to extend with the Wolves specifically, which is why he said he’d only extend with the Spurs!

[shrink]

Spurs obviously say no. Not because the value is no good, but because they made a commitment to Fox.

I’m asking this because I don’t know. Did they make this commitment AFTER the lottery?

[wemby]

FWIW we don't know how Harper affects Fox's or the Spurs' preferences. Diplomatically sending him to a contender (likely with an agreement for an extension) could be every party's preferred outcome.

Then that should be a premise to the trade proposal. "Assuming Fox asks for a trade under the threat of not extending, how about so and so...". If you don't preface the proposal with that condition then you have to go with what we know, which is that Fox is happy extending with the Spurs, which is literally what he said ("I hope so") days ago when asked about it post lottery and knowing Harper is the likely pick.

[One_and_Done]

Spurs obviously say no. Not because the value is no good, but because they made a commitment to Fox.

I’m asking this because I don’t know. Did they make this commitment AFTER the lottery?

Before. It's irrelevant. You sound like a fan asking 'well, why does my team have to go through with this trade? Nothing has been signed yet'.

[shrink]

Spurs obviously say no. Not because the value is no good, but because they made a commitment to Fox.

I’m asking this because I don’t know. Did they make this commitment AFTER the lottery?

Before. It's irrelevant. You sound like a fan asking 'well, why does my team have to go through with this trade? Nothing has been signed yet'.

Have there been any public commitments after? That would really convince me.

At the time, the Spurs did not know they were getting Harper. The odds of that were slim. No contract could be legally signed.

[One_and_Done]

I’m asking this because I don’t know. Did they make this commitment AFTER the lottery?

Before. It's irrelevant. You sound like a fan asking 'well, why does my team have to go through with this trade? Nothing has been signed yet'.

Have there been any public commitments after? That would really convince me.

At the time, the Spurs did not know they were getting Harper. The odds of that were slim. No contract could be legally signed.

That's not how commitments in the NBA work. They have to be unbreakable, or nobody would trust them again. You can't just weasel out of them with 'oh, but circumstances have changed now'.

[longfellow44]

Before. It's irrelevant. You sound like a fan asking 'well, why does my team have to go through with this trade? Nothing has been signed yet'.

Have there been any public commitments after? That would really convince me.

At the time, the Spurs did not know they were getting Harper. The odds of that were slim. No contract could be legally signed.

That's not how commitments in the NBA work. They have to be unbreakable, or nobody would trust them again. You can't just weasel out of them with 'oh, but circumstances have changed now'.

True that's one of the reasons players get traded when they request a trade. If guys ask to leave and you keep them anyway it looks bad to other players and makes it less likely that some players would want to work with you in the future. And agents are likely to steer players away from your team if they don't think that the team is willing to work with players when they want to leave.

The kings could have kept fox and called his bluff on not signing an extension, but that could lead to more difficulty signing players in the future. it was worth it for the kings to make the trade even though we clearly lost the trade in order to try to preserve what little bit of cache we have with players and agents.

Reputation matters, both for players and for teams.

Players know they can come to the kings to get a bigger payday than a lot of other teams, it sucks but it is what it is.

[One_and_Done]

Have there been any public commitments after? That would really convince me.

At the time, the Spurs did not know they were getting Harper. The odds of that were slim. No contract could be legally signed.

That's not how commitments in the NBA work. They have to be unbreakable, or nobody would trust them again. You can't just weasel out of them with 'oh, but circumstances have changed now'.

True that's one of the reasons players get traded when they request a trade. If guys ask to leave and you keep them anyway it looks bad to other players and makes it less likely that some players would want to work with you in the future. And agents are likely to steer players away from your team if they don't think that the team is willing to work with players when they want to leave.

The kings could have kept fox and called his bluff on not signing an extension, but that could lead to more difficulty signing players in the future. it was worth it for the kings to make the trade even though we clearly lost the trade in order to try to preserve what little bit of cache we have with players and agents.

Reputation matters, both for players and for teams.

Players know they can come to the kings to get a bigger payday than a lot of other teams, it sucks but it is what it is.

Fox wasn't bluffing though, nor was he traded there out of a desire to save face. He was traded because they knew he was leaving anyway.

[wegotthabeet]

This is one of those trades where the value is probably slanted towards Minnesota, but it's pretty hard for the fanbase (myself included) to feel comfortable with trading Jaden McDaniels.

That’s exactly how I would feel, but I prefer McDaniels > Fox. Not that he’s necessarily better just that I would rather have him.

[GopherIt!]

what does the fox say about playing in Minnesota?