Kings - Lakers - Bucks
Moderators: BullyKing, Andre Roberstan, loserX, Trader_Joe, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, MoneyTalks41890, HartfordWhalers, Texas Chuck
Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,827
- And1: 11,960
- Joined: Sep 17, 2010
-
Kings - Lakers - Bucks
Shield your eyes everyone. This ones ugly, Kings fans won't be happy.
Kings out: DeRozan
Kings in: Kleber, Vando
Sac does this to move on from DeRozan/LaVine pairing. Kleber is kept as an expiring salary and traded/bought out at the deadline, Vando could have a role defensively as the backup 4.
Schroder - Keon - LaVine - Keegan - Sabonis
Monk - Carter - Nique - Vando - Isaac Jones - Maxime
Bucks out: Kuzma
Bucks in: DeRozan
Bucks get a secondary scorer in DeRozan as they attempt to keep Giannis happy. His contract has a partial for next year if it doesn't work out.
KPJ - Trent - DeRozan - Giannis - Turner
Cole - Rollins - Harris - Green - Prince - Portis
Lakers out: Kleber + Vando
Lakers in: Kuzma
Lakers get a familiar face in Kuzma who played well with Lebron. This also shaves the 3rd vando year off the books, and allows them to maintain their 2 year plan moving ahead.
Luka - Reaves - Lebron - Rui - Ayton
Vincent - Bronny - Knecht - LaRavia - Kuzma - Hayes
Kings out: DeRozan
Kings in: Kleber, Vando
Sac does this to move on from DeRozan/LaVine pairing. Kleber is kept as an expiring salary and traded/bought out at the deadline, Vando could have a role defensively as the backup 4.
Schroder - Keon - LaVine - Keegan - Sabonis
Monk - Carter - Nique - Vando - Isaac Jones - Maxime
Bucks out: Kuzma
Bucks in: DeRozan
Bucks get a secondary scorer in DeRozan as they attempt to keep Giannis happy. His contract has a partial for next year if it doesn't work out.
KPJ - Trent - DeRozan - Giannis - Turner
Cole - Rollins - Harris - Green - Prince - Portis
Lakers out: Kleber + Vando
Lakers in: Kuzma
Lakers get a familiar face in Kuzma who played well with Lebron. This also shaves the 3rd vando year off the books, and allows them to maintain their 2 year plan moving ahead.
Luka - Reaves - Lebron - Rui - Ayton
Vincent - Bronny - Knecht - LaRavia - Kuzma - Hayes
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 21,757
- And1: 13,713
- Joined: Nov 13, 2019
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
bucks win on value, hate it for the other 2 teams
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,666
- And1: 1,764
- Joined: Sep 24, 2009
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
Lakers need defenders.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
- giannis and 1
- Starter
- Posts: 2,341
- And1: 1,171
- Joined: Jan 06, 2019
- Location: Vancouver, BC
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
I think I would do it from a Bucks pov
still learning the game
Matches Malone wrote:How did NBA fandom get to the point that it's more fun to thirst over players on other teams than to care more about your own team and players...
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,650
- And1: 1,344
- Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,167
- And1: 820
- Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
Moving on from LaVine/Derozan doesn’t mean to take a bad deal. Vando can’t even get on the court and at his size that’s a red flag. DeRozan is still impactful on offense and should be able to get something better than this even if that’s lower tier assets (second rounders) or a player that’s at least proven to be a rotational player.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,763
- And1: 4,036
- Joined: May 27, 2004
- Location: Masalaland
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
Seems about right value wise for these players
Deuteronomy 30:19 wrote:I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,352
- And1: 7,111
- Joined: Mar 30, 2006
- Location: Whereever you go - there you are
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
Don't know why the Lakers would prefer Kuzma to DDR. Feels like it's better for them as a 2-team deal.
The issues is Vanderbilt's health. If healthy, both the Lakers and the Kings can really use his defense and he'd be more valuable than DDR (or Kuzma). But he misses a lot of time and he's not so great that it's worth working around that.
The issues is Vanderbilt's health. If healthy, both the Lakers and the Kings can really use his defense and he'd be more valuable than DDR (or Kuzma). But he misses a lot of time and he's not so great that it's worth working around that.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,827
- And1: 11,960
- Joined: Sep 17, 2010
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
sackings916 wrote:Moving on from LaVine/Derozan doesn’t mean to take a bad deal. Vando can’t even get on the court and at his size that’s a red flag. DeRozan is still impactful on offense and should be able to get something better than this even if that’s lower tier assets (second rounders) or a player that’s at least proven to be a rotational player.
Not here to sell you that Vando is a stud. He's an extremely limited offensive player who has struggled with injuries. But defensively he is incredible. He gets played off the court in some matchups of the playoffs but I never noticed that being an issue during the regular season.
Demar does not have real value around the league. The sooner Kings fans come to terms with this (monk as well) the better off we will be.
Removing Demar is addition by subtraction.
Removing Demar lets LaVine thrive. It allows more minutes for Keon and Nique who are positive impact connectors who don't require a ton of shots. We've already seen a starting lineup with 4 awful defenders doesn't work. Do we really think much is going to change adding Schroder? It also opens more opportunity for Keegan/Sabonis who were the guys impacted the worst by the LaVine/DeRozan pairing. Just go look at Sabonis stat post Fox trade, it was a tragedy how bad he played the 2nd half.
Worst case you are right and losing Demar hurts us offensively and we lose a few more games. Great, we go from 11th seed to 13th. Get a better draft pick. And Sabonis who will surely ask out after a losing season will hopefully get a chance to play great basketball and elevate his trade value.
There's literally no downside to getting Demar off the team. Even if we get nothing. I don't think hes bad. I think we have too many guys who all want to play iso ball and not enough role players.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,827
- And1: 11,960
- Joined: Sep 17, 2010
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
giberish wrote:Don't know why the Lakers would prefer Kuzma to DDR. Feels like it's better for them as a 2-team deal.
The issues is Vanderbilt's health. If healthy, both the Lakers and the Kings can really use his defense and he'd be more valuable than DDR (or Kuzma). But he misses a lot of time and he's not so great that it's worth working around that.
Well my thinking is there are no shots for Demar in LA. Last time Kuzma played in LA he accepted a role next to LBJ/AD and was very successful at that role. Sure maybe LA just takes Demar as a 6th man, but I think they'd rather try and get Kuzma to accept the role he already performed well at.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,635
- And1: 5,052
- Joined: Jan 07, 2012
- Location: Atl
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
I’ll do it as laker fan. Some value in rolling kleber contract into a two year contract if they not going all in.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,167
- And1: 820
- Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
LightTheBeam wrote:sackings916 wrote:Moving on from LaVine/Derozan doesn’t mean to take a bad deal. Vando can’t even get on the court and at his size that’s a red flag. DeRozan is still impactful on offense and should be able to get something better than this even if that’s lower tier assets (second rounders) or a player that’s at least proven to be a rotational player.
Not here to sell you that Vando is a stud. He's an extremely limited offensive player who has struggled with injuries. But defensively he is incredible. He gets played off the court in some matchups of the playoffs but I never noticed that being an issue during the regular season.
Demar does not have real value around the league. The sooner Kings fans come to terms with this (monk as well) the better off we will be.
Removing Demar is addition by subtraction.
Removing Demar lets LaVine thrive. It allows more minutes for Keon and Nique who are positive impact connectors who don't require a ton of shots. We've already seen a starting lineup with 4 awful defenders doesn't work. Do we really think much is going to change adding Schroder? It also opens more opportunity for Keegan/Sabonis who were the guys impacted the worst by the LaVine/DeRozan pairing. Just go look at Sabonis stat post Fox trade, it was a tragedy how bad he played the 2nd half.
Worst case you are right and losing Demar hurts us offensively and we lose a few more games. Great, we go from 11th seed to 13th. Get a better draft pick. And Sabonis who will surely ask out after a losing season will hopefully get a chance to play great basketball and elevate his trade value.
There's literally no downside to getting Demar off the team. Even if we get nothing. I don't think hes bad. I think we have too many guys who all want to play iso ball and not enough role players.
You’re not wrong and you make valid points. The only issue I have is I think you are underselling the impact DeRozan has offensively. You acknowledged DeRozan makes the team worse offensively, that means he is impactful. In terms of the entire league he’s still one of the best at scoring and getting to the line. That has value, maybe not much because of his age/contract, but historically we’ve seen similar or even less impactful vets moved for 2-3 seconds or late/protected 1sts.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,827
- And1: 11,960
- Joined: Sep 17, 2010
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
sackings916 wrote:LightTheBeam wrote:sackings916 wrote:Moving on from LaVine/Derozan doesn’t mean to take a bad deal. Vando can’t even get on the court and at his size that’s a red flag. DeRozan is still impactful on offense and should be able to get something better than this even if that’s lower tier assets (second rounders) or a player that’s at least proven to be a rotational player.
Not here to sell you that Vando is a stud. He's an extremely limited offensive player who has struggled with injuries. But defensively he is incredible. He gets played off the court in some matchups of the playoffs but I never noticed that being an issue during the regular season.
Demar does not have real value around the league. The sooner Kings fans come to terms with this (monk as well) the better off we will be.
Removing Demar is addition by subtraction.
Removing Demar lets LaVine thrive. It allows more minutes for Keon and Nique who are positive impact connectors who don't require a ton of shots. We've already seen a starting lineup with 4 awful defenders doesn't work. Do we really think much is going to change adding Schroder? It also opens more opportunity for Keegan/Sabonis who were the guys impacted the worst by the LaVine/DeRozan pairing. Just go look at Sabonis stat post Fox trade, it was a tragedy how bad he played the 2nd half.
Worst case you are right and losing Demar hurts us offensively and we lose a few more games. Great, we go from 11th seed to 13th. Get a better draft pick. And Sabonis who will surely ask out after a losing season will hopefully get a chance to play great basketball and elevate his trade value.
There's literally no downside to getting Demar off the team. Even if we get nothing. I don't think hes bad. I think we have too many guys who all want to play iso ball and not enough role players.
You’re not wrong and you make valid points. The only issue I have is I think you are underselling the impact DeRozan has offensively. You acknowledged DeRozan makes the team worse offensively, that means he is impactful. In terms of the entire league he’s still one of the best at scoring and getting to the line. That has value, maybe not much because of his age/contract, but historically we’ve seen similar or even less impactful vets moved for 2-3 seconds or late/protected 1sts.
I did not acknowledge that. I said worst case you are right and that happens (but that isn't my belief). DeRozan is a good offensive player, but he actually makes Sac worse offensively. And its through no fault of his own. He just doesn't fit with Sabonis or LaVine. We are mixing water and oil. The team offensively was at its best when running PNR through Monk/Sabonis, or DHO with Sabonis top of the key. DeRozan doesn't fit into either of those sets. DeRozan best fits as an iso get a tough bucket, rendering Sabonis useless. His value would come on a team that struggles to get buckets down the stretch (Houston as an example last year, but they added Durant).
As for your 2nd point, we need to realize that its time to throw out what we historically know. The 2nd apron is upon us. We saw the valuation of undersized scoring guards with no defense this summer. They went from 18-30 million a year, to zero/negative value. Powell, Cole, Poole, CJ, Simons, Clarkson, Sexton. The list goes on and on. I'm not necessarily putting DeRozan in that exact camp. But he is a no defense scoring guard, only hes not as undersized but he also doesn't shoot 3s like the rest of these guys. I can't imagine any team lining up to spend 25 on DeRozan. If he was making 10-15? I think he'd have a pretty decent market.
I keep hearing from Kings fans here and on other boards that Demar should have value. But all signs point to the fact he doesn't. Every Sac media guy immediately reported hes gone after the season. Then the offers didn't come. Suddenly it was Monk who was going to be gone, only again the offers didn't come. I cannot imagine Perry is happy going into next year with Monk, Demar, laVine all still on the roster, I just think he doesn't really have a choice. If we can get Roziers expiring or a deal like this, we should jump at it.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,827
- And1: 11,960
- Joined: Sep 17, 2010
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
kobe_vs_jordan wrote:I’ll do it as laker fan. Some value in rolling kleber contract into a two year contract if they not going all in.
My thoughts as well. Seems like a 2 year plan for LA. I also think they want to try and win without going all in. I liked it for LA more than the other teams btw.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,167
- And1: 820
- Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
LightTheBeam wrote:sackings916 wrote:LightTheBeam wrote:
Not here to sell you that Vando is a stud. He's an extremely limited offensive player who has struggled with injuries. But defensively he is incredible. He gets played off the court in some matchups of the playoffs but I never noticed that being an issue during the regular season.
Demar does not have real value around the league. The sooner Kings fans come to terms with this (monk as well) the better off we will be.
Removing Demar is addition by subtraction.
Removing Demar lets LaVine thrive. It allows more minutes for Keon and Nique who are positive impact connectors who don't require a ton of shots. We've already seen a starting lineup with 4 awful defenders doesn't work. Do we really think much is going to change adding Schroder? It also opens more opportunity for Keegan/Sabonis who were the guys impacted the worst by the LaVine/DeRozan pairing. Just go look at Sabonis stat post Fox trade, it was a tragedy how bad he played the 2nd half.
Worst case you are right and losing Demar hurts us offensively and we lose a few more games. Great, we go from 11th seed to 13th. Get a better draft pick. And Sabonis who will surely ask out after a losing season will hopefully get a chance to play great basketball and elevate his trade value.
There's literally no downside to getting Demar off the team. Even if we get nothing. I don't think hes bad. I think we have too many guys who all want to play iso ball and not enough role players.
You’re not wrong and you make valid points. The only issue I have is I think you are underselling the impact DeRozan has offensively. You acknowledged DeRozan makes the team worse offensively, that means he is impactful. In terms of the entire league he’s still one of the best at scoring and getting to the line. That has value, maybe not much because of his age/contract, but historically we’ve seen similar or even less impactful vets moved for 2-3 seconds or late/protected 1sts.
I did not acknowledge that. I said worst case you are right and that happens (but that isn't my belief). DeRozan is a good offensive player, but he actually makes Sac worse offensively. And its through no fault of his own. He just doesn't fit with Sabonis or LaVine. We are mixing water and oil. The team offensively was at its best when running PNR through Monk/Sabonis, or DHO with Sabonis top of the key. DeRozan doesn't fit into either of those sets. DeRozan best fits as an iso get a tough bucket, rendering Sabonis useless. His value would come on a team that struggles to get buckets down the stretch (Houston as an example last year, but they added Durant).
As for your 2nd point, we need to realize that its time to throw out what we historically know. The 2nd apron is upon us. We saw the valuation of undersized scoring guards with no defense this summer. They went from 18-30 million a year, to zero/negative value. Powell, Cole, Poole, CJ, Simons, Clarkson, Sexton. The list goes on and on. I'm not necessarily putting DeRozan in that exact camp. But he is a no defense scoring guard, only hes not as undersized but he also doesn't shoot 3s like the rest of these guys. I can't imagine any team lining up to spend 25 on DeRozan. If he was making 10-15? I think he'd have a pretty decent market.
I keep hearing from Kings fans here and on other boards that Demar should have value. But all signs point to the fact he doesn't. Every Sac media guy immediately reported hes gone after the season. Then the offers didn't come. Suddenly it was Monk who was going to be gone, only again the offers didn't come. I cannot imagine Perry is happy going into next year with Monk, Demar, laVine all still on the roster, I just think he doesn't really have a choice. If we can get Roziers expiring or a deal like this, we should jump at it.
You said this as if the Kings were a bad offensive team. On a year full of chaos, a coaching change, losing their best player, and key pieces adjusting to a new team/offensive system the Kings were the 7th rated offense and DeRozan put up 22ppg on 48% FG. That is an extremely impactful offensive player. It would not surprise me with a year of continuity and more stability if the Kings are a top 5 offense as is.
As far as the aprons, this is still TBD. It’s possible teams are moving cautiously initially, we’ll see how it carries over to the trade deadline.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,827
- And1: 11,960
- Joined: Sep 17, 2010
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
sackings916 wrote:LightTheBeam wrote:sackings916 wrote:
You’re not wrong and you make valid points. The only issue I have is I think you are underselling the impact DeRozan has offensively. You acknowledged DeRozan makes the team worse offensively, that means he is impactful. In terms of the entire league he’s still one of the best at scoring and getting to the line. That has value, maybe not much because of his age/contract, but historically we’ve seen similar or even less impactful vets moved for 2-3 seconds or late/protected 1sts.
I did not acknowledge that. I said worst case you are right and that happens (but that isn't my belief). DeRozan is a good offensive player, but he actually makes Sac worse offensively. And its through no fault of his own. He just doesn't fit with Sabonis or LaVine. We are mixing water and oil. The team offensively was at its best when running PNR through Monk/Sabonis, or DHO with Sabonis top of the key. DeRozan doesn't fit into either of those sets. DeRozan best fits as an iso get a tough bucket, rendering Sabonis useless. His value would come on a team that struggles to get buckets down the stretch (Houston as an example last year, but they added Durant).
As for your 2nd point, we need to realize that its time to throw out what we historically know. The 2nd apron is upon us. We saw the valuation of undersized scoring guards with no defense this summer. They went from 18-30 million a year, to zero/negative value. Powell, Cole, Poole, CJ, Simons, Clarkson, Sexton. The list goes on and on. I'm not necessarily putting DeRozan in that exact camp. But he is a no defense scoring guard, only hes not as undersized but he also doesn't shoot 3s like the rest of these guys. I can't imagine any team lining up to spend 25 on DeRozan. If he was making 10-15? I think he'd have a pretty decent market.
I keep hearing from Kings fans here and on other boards that Demar should have value. But all signs point to the fact he doesn't. Every Sac media guy immediately reported hes gone after the season. Then the offers didn't come. Suddenly it was Monk who was going to be gone, only again the offers didn't come. I cannot imagine Perry is happy going into next year with Monk, Demar, laVine all still on the roster, I just think he doesn't really have a choice. If we can get Roziers expiring or a deal like this, we should jump at it.
You said this as if the Kings were a bad offensive team. On a year full of chaos, a coaching change, losing their best player, and key pieces adjusting to a new team/offensive system the Kings were the 7th rated offense and DeRozan put up 22ppg on 48% FG. That is an extremely impactful offensive player. It would not surprise me with a year of continuity and more stability if the Kings are a top 5 offense as is.
As far as the aprons, this is still TBD. It’s possible teams are moving cautiously initially, we’ll see how it carries over to the trade deadline.
Again even if you say post ASB we were a good offensive team. We went 16-19 Feb-April. We know this isn't a recipe for success.
Without Demar we still have LaVine/Sabonis/Monk/Schroder/Keegan to pick up the offensive load. Do you think we will struggle to score without Demar?
Post ASB we were one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Removing Demar adds minutes for Carter, Keon, Nique (all good defenders), and adds Vando (increased size and defense).
I'd wager our offense stays the same or improves, and our defense improves significantly.
Schroder/Monk
Keon/Carter
LaVine/Nique
Keegan/Vando/Jones
Sabonis/Maxime/Eubanks
Just look at the depth chart. And look at how the Kings performed with Keon in the starting lineup vs without. In simple terms 25-21 when Keon started. 15-21 when he didn't. The team was night and day better getting him in the lineup.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,167
- And1: 820
- Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
LightTheBeam wrote:sackings916 wrote:LightTheBeam wrote:
I did not acknowledge that. I said worst case you are right and that happens (but that isn't my belief). DeRozan is a good offensive player, but he actually makes Sac worse offensively. And its through no fault of his own. He just doesn't fit with Sabonis or LaVine. We are mixing water and oil. The team offensively was at its best when running PNR through Monk/Sabonis, or DHO with Sabonis top of the key. DeRozan doesn't fit into either of those sets. DeRozan best fits as an iso get a tough bucket, rendering Sabonis useless. His value would come on a team that struggles to get buckets down the stretch (Houston as an example last year, but they added Durant).
As for your 2nd point, we need to realize that its time to throw out what we historically know. The 2nd apron is upon us. We saw the valuation of undersized scoring guards with no defense this summer. They went from 18-30 million a year, to zero/negative value. Powell, Cole, Poole, CJ, Simons, Clarkson, Sexton. The list goes on and on. I'm not necessarily putting DeRozan in that exact camp. But he is a no defense scoring guard, only hes not as undersized but he also doesn't shoot 3s like the rest of these guys. I can't imagine any team lining up to spend 25 on DeRozan. If he was making 10-15? I think he'd have a pretty decent market.
I keep hearing from Kings fans here and on other boards that Demar should have value. But all signs point to the fact he doesn't. Every Sac media guy immediately reported hes gone after the season. Then the offers didn't come. Suddenly it was Monk who was going to be gone, only again the offers didn't come. I cannot imagine Perry is happy going into next year with Monk, Demar, laVine all still on the roster, I just think he doesn't really have a choice. If we can get Roziers expiring or a deal like this, we should jump at it.
You said this as if the Kings were a bad offensive team. On a year full of chaos, a coaching change, losing their best player, and key pieces adjusting to a new team/offensive system the Kings were the 7th rated offense and DeRozan put up 22ppg on 48% FG. That is an extremely impactful offensive player. It would not surprise me with a year of continuity and more stability if the Kings are a top 5 offense as is.
As far as the aprons, this is still TBD. It’s possible teams are moving cautiously initially, we’ll see how it carries over to the trade deadline.
Again even if you say post ASB we were a good offensive team. We went 16-19 Feb-April. We know this isn't a recipe for success.
Without Demar we still have LaVine/Sabonis/Monk/Schroder/Keegan to pick up the offensive load. Do you think we will struggle to score without Demar?
Post ASB we were one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Removing Demar adds minutes for Carter, Keon, Nique (all good defenders), and adds Vando (increased size and defense).
I'd wager our offense stays the same or improves, and our defense improves significantly.
Schroder/Monk
Keon/Carter
LaVine/Nique
Keegan/Vando/Jones
Sabonis/Maxime/Eubanks
Just look at the depth chart. And look at how the Kings performed with Keon in the starting lineup vs without. In simple terms 25-21 when Keon started. 15-21 when he didn't. The team was night and day better getting him in the lineup.
Absolutely I agree with you here. The Kings are a horrible defensive team. My argument was not that the Kings as is are a good team. The argument was DeRozan as an offensive player and his impact on that end. I do think the Kings would struggle to score without DeMar because there is no other halfcourt option that they can ISO or post to break down the defense or demand a double team.
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,827
- And1: 11,960
- Joined: Sep 17, 2010
-
Re: Kings - Lakers - Bucks
sackings916 wrote:LightTheBeam wrote:sackings916 wrote:
You said this as if the Kings were a bad offensive team. On a year full of chaos, a coaching change, losing their best player, and key pieces adjusting to a new team/offensive system the Kings were the 7th rated offense and DeRozan put up 22ppg on 48% FG. That is an extremely impactful offensive player. It would not surprise me with a year of continuity and more stability if the Kings are a top 5 offense as is.
As far as the aprons, this is still TBD. It’s possible teams are moving cautiously initially, we’ll see how it carries over to the trade deadline.
Again even if you say post ASB we were a good offensive team. We went 16-19 Feb-April. We know this isn't a recipe for success.
Without Demar we still have LaVine/Sabonis/Monk/Schroder/Keegan to pick up the offensive load. Do you think we will struggle to score without Demar?
Post ASB we were one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Removing Demar adds minutes for Carter, Keon, Nique (all good defenders), and adds Vando (increased size and defense).
I'd wager our offense stays the same or improves, and our defense improves significantly.
Schroder/Monk
Keon/Carter
LaVine/Nique
Keegan/Vando/Jones
Sabonis/Maxime/Eubanks
Just look at the depth chart. And look at how the Kings performed with Keon in the starting lineup vs without. In simple terms 25-21 when Keon started. 15-21 when he didn't. The team was night and day better getting him in the lineup.
Absolutely I agree with you here. The Kings are a horrible defensive team. My argument was not that the Kings as is are a good team. The argument was DeRozan as an offensive player and his impact on that end. I do think the Kings would struggle to score without DeMar because there is no other halfcourt option that they can ISO or post to break down the defense or demand a double team.
Well last year when Monk-Keon-Demar-Keegan-Sabonis started that lineup was actually really good. If I could choose, Id keep DeRozan over LaVine, but I don't have that choice. So I'm banking on the removal of Demar allowing us to play a similar style lineup with Lavine in his place.
You argument of drawing doubles is fair. But I'd suggest that allowing Sabonis to go back to running the half court offense is a plus for everyone. Zach should thrive. The young guys will thrive. Monk plays MUCH better in that system.
Maybe we can get 2nds for Demar at the deadline. But the opportunity cost is massive. We get less development for the kids, and we do a disservice to others who could potentially raise their trade value. I think we lose out on more long term value holding him now. Just my 2 cents.
Return to Trades and Transactions