Sabonis to memphis

[One_and_Done]

Sabonis is a good center and the best PF the Kings have put next to him is Harrison Barnes. The second best PF is Keegan Murray playing out of position.

He'd be the best center Ja and JJJ have ever played with and you're silly to try to group him in with DDR and LaVine. If you're tired of trade proposals involving certain players, not posting in threads about those players is an option.

He's not a center or a power forward in today's game. That's what makes him a flawed player who isn't a good fit for a contender.

2023 Barnes was a good option as the 4 for a running team. The Kings were wise to play him in that role. It was Sabonis who put a ceiling on that team. They'd have been better off playing a rim roller at the 5 and letting, preferably a spacer like Turner. Then they'd play 5 out and the team would have been much improved.

You say this as if the OKC isn't a contender with Hartenstein. The Warriors won how many championships with Looney? Even Jokic only averages 3.1 3PA per game.

You clearly have an ideal 5-out lineup with an ideal center (Turner) and an ideal PF (JJJ) in mind, but the reality is that there's one Turner, he'll be 30 in two weeks, and one JJJ. The other 29 teams are going to have to find a way to contend without them.

I.Hart can play D. He can also be strategically benched or played 20mpg when the match up dictates it, whereas these faux stars liie Sabonis are not going to be cool with that. Looney's situation is much the same; a role player who is content to get few touches and play few minutes, getting benched as needed. Jokic is on the floor for being so otherworldly on O that his other flaws are overlooked, though he does take insanely high degree of difficulty 3s. You can't compare other players to these 1 of 1 guys.

5 out 5s are rare, but they're hardly limited to 2/30 reams, as Turner, JJJ, Wemby, Horford, Zinger, Chet, Lopez, KAT, Mobley, etc, indicate. But I'd rather have a non-shooting rim roller than Sabonis. It would screw things up less. Focus your money on getting non-flawed stars at other positions.

[jbk1234]

He's not a center or a power forward in today's game. That's what makes him a flawed player who isn't a good fit for a contender.

2023 Barnes was a good option as the 4 for a running team. The Kings were wise to play him in that role. It was Sabonis who put a ceiling on that team. They'd have been better off playing a rim roller at the 5 and letting, preferably a spacer like Turner. Then they'd play 5 out and the team would have been much improved.

You say this as if the OKC isn't a contender with Hartenstein. The Warriors won how many championships with Looney? Even Jokic only averages 3.1 3PA per game.

You clearly have an ideal 5-out lineup with an ideal center (Turner) and an ideal PF (JJJ) in mind, but the reality is that there's one Turner, he'll be 30 in two weeks, and one JJJ. The other 29 teams are going to have to find a way to contend without them.

I.Hart can play D. He can also be strategically benched or played 20mpg when the match up dictates it, whereas these faux stars liie Sabonis are not going to be cool with that. Looney's situation is much the same; a role player who is content to get few touches and play few minutes, getting benched as needed. Jokic is on the floor for being so otherworldly on O that his other flaws are overlooked, though he does take insanely high degree of difficulty 3s. You can't compare other players to these 1 of 1 guys.

5 out 5s are rare, but they're hardly limited to 2/30 reams, as Turner, JJJ, Wemby, Horford, Zinger, Chet, Lopez, KAT, Mobley, etc, indicate. But I'd rather have a non-shooting rim roller than Sabonis. It would screw things up less. Focus your money on getting non-flawed stars at other positions.

Horford and Lopez aren't just old, they're ancient. Porzingis is constantly injured. Sabonis is a better defender than KAT. The reason OKC went out and got Hartenstein is because Chet at center full time didn't work against the Mavs. JJJ is not a center and doesn't like playing center. Mobley isn't available.

If you'd rather go with a rim running center have at it, but those guys are less effective when everyone gets back on defense in the playoffs, and they can even be a liability against centers like Sabonis who can effectively play bully ball.

[QMemphis]

lol Grizz ain’t doing that OP deal. Thats plain robbery. Paying a center 45 million who may not even close games for us is not on the agenda. Also not sure how far off Edey is from Sabonis, but it definitely ain’t the package above.

Agree OP is a big overpay, but Edey is very very far off from Sabonis.

Given the difference in cost I rather take a chance on Edey once he returns. We are not going to showcase Sabonis and paying a center that struggles defensively 45 million is not something we would be interested in.

[sackings916]

You say this as if the OKC isn't a contender with Hartenstein. The Warriors won how many championships with Looney? Even Jokic only averages 3.1 3PA per game.

You clearly have an ideal 5-out lineup with an ideal center (Turner) and an ideal PF (JJJ) in mind, but the reality is that there's one Turner, he'll be 30 in two weeks, and one JJJ. The other 29 teams are going to have to find a way to contend without them.

I.Hart can play D. He can also be strategically benched or played 20mpg when the match up dictates it, whereas these faux stars liie Sabonis are not going to be cool with that. Looney's situation is much the same; a role player who is content to get few touches and play few minutes, getting benched as needed. Jokic is on the floor for being so otherworldly on O that his other flaws are overlooked, though he does take insanely high degree of difficulty 3s. You can't compare other players to these 1 of 1 guys.

5 out 5s are rare, but they're hardly limited to 2/30 reams, as Turner, JJJ, Wemby, Horford, Zinger, Chet, Lopez, KAT, Mobley, etc, indicate. But I'd rather have a non-shooting rim roller than Sabonis. It would screw things up less. Focus your money on getting non-flawed stars at other positions.

Horford and Lopez aren't just old, they're ancient. Porzingis is constantly injured. Sabonis is a better defender than KAT. The reason OKC went out and got Hartenstein is because Chet at center full time didn't work against the Mavs. JJJ is not a center and doesn't like playing center. Mobley isn't available.

If you'd rather go with a rim running center have at it, but those guys are less effective when everyone gets back on defense in the playoffs, and they can even be a liability against centers like Sabonis who can effectively play bully ball.

It’s a waste of time to present facts, data and metrics to him. He has false narratives and inaccuracies of Sabonis and that’s what he will continue to go by.

[LightTheBeam]

The real offer from Memphis should be Aldama, KCP, Pippen, GG, 3 1sts (no Wells, no PHX 1st), and the Grizzlies will be fine if rejected.

I'd love Wells for the hometown stuff, but this would still be fine to me. It's a bunch of dimes for Sabonis but I'm a fan of GG and want to see the Kings stack some firsts. I'd buy out Westbrook/Demar/LaVine afterwords, we should be tanking this year and next anyways so the dead cap wouldnt matter.

Schroder - Pippen
Keon - Monk - Carter
Keegan - Clifford - KCP
GG - Aldama
Maxime - Cardwell - Eubanks

Got a few solid role pieces here, if we could add two high draft picks to this squad. Hopefully find a trade for Schroder/KCP in the summer.

I’m not saying this is bad or the wrong route moving forward, but Vivek would NEVER be on board with this.

Oh I agree. Hes the worst owner in sports. But won't stop me from dreaming of what could be lol.

[One_and_Done]

You say this as if the OKC isn't a contender with Hartenstein. The Warriors won how many championships with Looney? Even Jokic only averages 3.1 3PA per game.

You clearly have an ideal 5-out lineup with an ideal center (Turner) and an ideal PF (JJJ) in mind, but the reality is that there's one Turner, he'll be 30 in two weeks, and one JJJ. The other 29 teams are going to have to find a way to contend without them.

I.Hart can play D. He can also be strategically benched or played 20mpg when the match up dictates it, whereas these faux stars liie Sabonis are not going to be cool with that. Looney's situation is much the same; a role player who is content to get few touches and play few minutes, getting benched as needed. Jokic is on the floor for being so otherworldly on O that his other flaws are overlooked, though he does take insanely high degree of difficulty 3s. You can't compare other players to these 1 of 1 guys.

5 out 5s are rare, but they're hardly limited to 2/30 reams, as Turner, JJJ, Wemby, Horford, Zinger, Chet, Lopez, KAT, Mobley, etc, indicate. But I'd rather have a non-shooting rim roller than Sabonis. It would screw things up less. Focus your money on getting non-flawed stars at other positions.

Horford and Lopez aren't just old, they're ancient. Porzingis is constantly injured. Sabonis is a better defender than KAT. The reason OKC went out and got Hartenstein is because Chet at center full time didn't work against the Mavs. JJJ is not a center and doesn't like playing center. Mobley isn't available.

If you'd rather go with a rim running center have at it, but those guys are less effective when everyone gets back on defense in the playoffs, and they can even be a liability against centers like Sabonis who can effectively play bully ball.

The point is 1) the counter examples you've made don't work, because Sabonis isn't willing to be a situational role player who often doesn't play starter minutes, like Looney or I.Hart, 2) There are more 5 out 5s than '1 or 2 guys', and 3) your team would have a higher ceiling built around even a normal rim runner like prime Clint Capela, Lively, J.Allen, etc. You can then build a less flawed team which isn't warped on both ends due to the presence of a non-shooting 5 who can't be your defensive anchor. Those players are more common, and cheaper too.

Any team that wants to be a serious team should either get a 5 out 5 who can play D, or a rim roller, or they should get a hustling defensive 5 who can play D and is willing to get benched or play non-starter minutes when needed (e.g. I.Hart/prime Looney). The last type is the least desirable for most teams, and is mostly used when you already have a 4 who can play the 5, but you need to spell him or change it for certain match ups.

[youngcrev]

Massive overpay, but I like the general concept of Sabonis to Memphis. I like the fit with Ja and JJJ.

[One_and_Done]

Massive overpay, but I like the general concept of Sabonis to Memphis. I like the fit with Ja and JJJ.

JJJ does alot for Sabonis, but Sabonis serfs JJJ, so not clear how it's good for Memphis. They should put a shooter or defensive rim roller next to JJJ (or both).

[sackings916]

I.Hart can play D. He can also be strategically benched or played 20mpg when the match up dictates it, whereas these faux stars liie Sabonis are not going to be cool with that. Looney's situation is much the same; a role player who is content to get few touches and play few minutes, getting benched as needed. Jokic is on the floor for being so otherworldly on O that his other flaws are overlooked, though he does take insanely high degree of difficulty 3s. You can't compare other players to these 1 of 1 guys.

5 out 5s are rare, but they're hardly limited to 2/30 reams, as Turner, JJJ, Wemby, Horford, Zinger, Chet, Lopez, KAT, Mobley, etc, indicate. But I'd rather have a non-shooting rim roller than Sabonis. It would screw things up less. Focus your money on getting non-flawed stars at other positions.

Horford and Lopez aren't just old, they're ancient. Porzingis is constantly injured. Sabonis is a better defender than KAT. The reason OKC went out and got Hartenstein is because Chet at center full time didn't work against the Mavs. JJJ is not a center and doesn't like playing center. Mobley isn't available.

If you'd rather go with a rim running center have at it, but those guys are less effective when everyone gets back on defense in the playoffs, and they can even be a liability against centers like Sabonis who can effectively play bully ball.

The point is 1) the counter examples you've made don't work, because Sabonis isn't willing to be a situational role player who often doesn't play starter minutes, like Looney or I.Hart, 2) There are more 5 out 5s than '1 or 2 guys', and 3) your team would have a higher ceiling built around even a normal rim runner like prime Clint Capela, Lively, J.Allen, etc. You can then build a less flawed team which isn't warped on both ends due to the presence of a non-shooting 5 who can't be your defensive anchor. Those players are more common, and cheaper too.

Any team that wants to be a serious team should either get a 5 out 5 who can play D, or a rim roller, or they should get a hustling defensive 5 who can play D and is willing to get benched or play non-starter minutes when needed (e.g. I.Hart/prime Looney). The last type is the least desirable for most teams, and is mostly used when you already have a 4 who can play the 5, but you need to spell him or change it for certain match ups.

This is ridiculous logic. So are the Knicks not contenders since KAT is their starting C even though they have 2 elite defenders at the forward spots next to him? Jokic doesn’t fit into this box either, so are Nuggets not contenders? Imagine if the league had this type of black and white thinking - everyone would still be running 2 bigs like in the 90s and early 00s.

[One_and_Done]

Horford and Lopez aren't just old, they're ancient. Porzingis is constantly injured. Sabonis is a better defender than KAT. The reason OKC went out and got Hartenstein is because Chet at center full time didn't work against the Mavs. JJJ is not a center and doesn't like playing center. Mobley isn't available.

If you'd rather go with a rim running center have at it, but those guys are less effective when everyone gets back on defense in the playoffs, and they can even be a liability against centers like Sabonis who can effectively play bully ball.

The point is 1) the counter examples you've made don't work, because Sabonis isn't willing to be a situational role player who often doesn't play starter minutes, like Looney or I.Hart, 2) There are more 5 out 5s than '1 or 2 guys', and 3) your team would have a higher ceiling built around even a normal rim runner like prime Clint Capela, Lively, J.Allen, etc. You can then build a less flawed team which isn't warped on both ends due to the presence of a non-shooting 5 who can't be your defensive anchor. Those players are more common, and cheaper too.

Any team that wants to be a serious team should either get a 5 out 5 who can play D, or a rim roller, or they should get a hustling defensive 5 who can play D and is willing to get benched or play non-starter minutes when needed (e.g. I.Hart/prime Looney). The last type is the least desirable for most teams, and is mostly used when you already have a 4 who can play the 5, but you need to spell him or change it for certain match ups.

This is ridiculous logic. So are the Knicks not contenders since KAT is their starting C even though they have 2 elite defenders at the forward spots next to him? Jokic doesn’t fit into this box either, so are Nuggets not contenders? Imagine if the league had this type of black and white thinking - everyone would still be running 2 bigs like in the 90s and early 00s.

KAT is an elite 3pt shooting 5. Only his D leaves much to be desired, and his man D has actually improved alot as we saw in the Jokic series... but yes, his fit at the 5 is a bit problematic, which is why the Knicks turn to Mitchell when he's healthy sometimes.

Jokic defensive abilities are problematic, but in his case he's giving you otherworldly offense that compensates. Sabonis isn't giving you otherworldly offense, or elite 3 point shooting.

[sackings916]

The point is 1) the counter examples you've made don't work, because Sabonis isn't willing to be a situational role player who often doesn't play starter minutes, like Looney or I.Hart, 2) There are more 5 out 5s than '1 or 2 guys', and 3) your team would have a higher ceiling built around even a normal rim runner like prime Clint Capela, Lively, J.Allen, etc. You can then build a less flawed team which isn't warped on both ends due to the presence of a non-shooting 5 who can't be your defensive anchor. Those players are more common, and cheaper too.

Any team that wants to be a serious team should either get a 5 out 5 who can play D, or a rim roller, or they should get a hustling defensive 5 who can play D and is willing to get benched or play non-starter minutes when needed (e.g. I.Hart/prime Looney). The last type is the least desirable for most teams, and is mostly used when you already have a 4 who can play the 5, but you need to spell him or change it for certain match ups.

This is ridiculous logic. So are the Knicks not contenders since KAT is their starting C even though they have 2 elite defenders at the forward spots next to him? Jokic doesn’t fit into this box either, so are Nuggets not contenders? Imagine if the league had this type of black and white thinking - everyone would still be running 2 bigs like in the 90s and early 00s.

KAT is an elite 3pt shooting 5. Only his D leaves much to be desired, and his man D has actually improved alot as we saw in the Jokic series... but yes, his fit at the 5 is a bit problematic, which is why the Knicks turn to Mitchell when he's healthy sometimes.

Jokic defensive abilities are problematic, but in his case he's giving you otherworldly offense that compensates. Sabonis isn't giving you otherworldly offense, or elite 3 point shooting.

I just think that’s too rigid. There are multiple ways to contend now since the league’s basically positionless. Playmaking can come from bigs or wings, rim protection from forwards, scoring from point guards. It’s not about checking positional boxes anymore, it’s about building around versatility and synergy.

The fact is that Sabonis needs a true #1 option and strong defenders around him, and he hasn’t had that support yet.

[One_and_Done]

This is ridiculous logic. So are the Knicks not contenders since KAT is their starting C even though they have 2 elite defenders at the forward spots next to him? Jokic doesn’t fit into this box either, so are Nuggets not contenders? Imagine if the league had this type of black and white thinking - everyone would still be running 2 bigs like in the 90s and early 00s.

KAT is an elite 3pt shooting 5. Only his D leaves much to be desired, and his man D has actually improved alot as we saw in the Jokic series... but yes, his fit at the 5 is a bit problematic, which is why the Knicks turn to Mitchell when he's healthy sometimes.

Jokic defensive abilities are problematic, but in his case he's giving you otherworldly offense that compensates. Sabonis isn't giving you otherworldly offense, or elite 3 point shooting.

I just think that’s too rigid. There are multiple ways to contend now since the league’s basically positionless. Playmaking can come from bigs or wings, rim protection from forwards, scoring from point guards. It’s not about checking positional boxes anymore, it’s about building around versatility and synergy.

The fact is that Sabonis needs a true #1 option and strong defenders around him, and he hasn’t had that support yet.

There are lots of ways to contend. All of them involve not starting flawed players unless they have some fantastical ability that offsets their weakness enough. The whole reason the term 16 game players exists is because there are indeed some guys who aren't built to facilitate postseason success.

[sackings916]

KAT is an elite 3pt shooting 5. Only his D leaves much to be desired, and his man D has actually improved alot as we saw in the Jokic series... but yes, his fit at the 5 is a bit problematic, which is why the Knicks turn to Mitchell when he's healthy sometimes.

Jokic defensive abilities are problematic, but in his case he's giving you otherworldly offense that compensates. Sabonis isn't giving you otherworldly offense, or elite 3 point shooting.

I just think that’s too rigid. There are multiple ways to contend now since the league’s basically positionless. Playmaking can come from bigs or wings, rim protection from forwards, scoring from point guards. It’s not about checking positional boxes anymore, it’s about building around versatility and synergy.

The fact is that Sabonis needs a true #1 option and strong defenders around him, and he hasn’t had that support yet.

There are lots of ways to contend. All of them involve not starting flawed players unless they have some fantastical ability that offsets their weakness enough. The whole reason the term 16 game players exists is because there are indeed some guys who aren't built to facilitate postseason success.

Sure, there are flaws, but almost every player does. The key isn’t finding “perfect” guys — it’s about building a roster where weaknesses are covered and strengths multiply. That’s why multiple ways to contend exist, and why “flawless” players aren’t required.

There are maybe 5-10 guys in the league that don’t have flaws.

[One_and_Done]

I just think that’s too rigid. There are multiple ways to contend now since the league’s basically positionless. Playmaking can come from bigs or wings, rim protection from forwards, scoring from point guards. It’s not about checking positional boxes anymore, it’s about building around versatility and synergy.

The fact is that Sabonis needs a true #1 option and strong defenders around him, and he hasn’t had that support yet.

There are lots of ways to contend. All of them involve not starting flawed players unless they have some fantastical ability that offsets their weakness enough. The whole reason the term 16 game players exists is because there are indeed some guys who aren't built to facilitate postseason success.

Sure, there are flaws, but almost every player does. The key isn’t finding “perfect” guys — it’s about building a roster where weaknesses are covered and strengths multiply. That’s why multiple ways to contend exist, and why “flawless” players aren’t required.

There are maybe 5-10 guys in the league that don’t have flaws.

The way you win is having guys with no weaknesses, or if they do then they're providing so much elsewhere that they're an outlier whose weaknesses you'll stomach. Boston & OKC are examples of the first kind of title team, and Denver & Milwaukee are examples of the latter. There is no example for a player like Sabonis. He is not a guy you want in a major starting role for a contender in today's game.

[sackings916]

There are lots of ways to contend. All of them involve not starting flawed players unless they have some fantastical ability that offsets their weakness enough. The whole reason the term 16 game players exists is because there are indeed some guys who aren't built to facilitate postseason success.

Sure, there are flaws, but almost every player does. The key isn’t finding “perfect” guys — it’s about building a roster where weaknesses are covered and strengths multiply. That’s why multiple ways to contend exist, and why “flawless” players aren’t required.

There are maybe 5-10 guys in the league that don’t have flaws.

The way you win is having guys with no weaknesses, or if they do then they're providing so much elsewhere that they're an outlier whose weaknesses you'll stomach. Boston & OKC are examples of the first kind of title team, and Denver & Milwaukee are examples of the latter. There is no example for a player like Sabonis. He is not a guy you want in a major starting role for a contender in today's game.

That’s cool. You’re just describing a version of the NBA that doesn’t exist. Most contenders have flawed players, they just build around them well. And by that logic you can’t have half of the all stars in the league starting for you. Agree to disagree

[One_and_Done]

I think you're confusing flaws with weaknesses. It's the latter you don't want your starters and 16 game players to have. They don't have to be perfect players, just ones the other team can't easily exploit.

[sackings916]

I think you're confusing flaws with weaknesses. It's the latter you don't want your starters and 16 game players to have. They don't have to be perfect players, just ones the other team can't easily exploit.

I get what you’re saying, but that’s kind of a semantic difference. Whether you call it a flaw or a weakness, the truth is teams win with imperfect players all the time. They just build rosters and systems that maximize strengths and hide weaknesses. No one’s unexploitable in a 7 game series.

[One_and_Done]

I think you're confusing flaws with weaknesses. It's the latter you don't want your starters and 16 game players to have. They don't have to be perfect players, just ones the other team can't easily exploit.

I get what you’re saying, but that’s kind of a semantic difference. Whether you call it a flaw or a weakness, the truth is teams win with imperfect players all the time. They just build rosters and systems that maximize strengths and hide weaknesses. No one’s unexploitable in a 7 game series.

What recent contender started a 5 who couldn't protect the rim, was bad on D, and couldn't hit 3s well?

I realise Sacramento hasn't had many winning teams in recent decades, so it might be unfamiliar, but teams don't succeed to that level in today's game with players like Sabonis starting in major roles... or Demar... or Lavine. In fairness Lavine's biggest problem is his health.

[sackings916]

I think you're confusing flaws with weaknesses. It's the latter you don't want your starters and 16 game players to have. They don't have to be perfect players, just ones the other team can't easily exploit.

I get what you’re saying, but that’s kind of a semantic difference. Whether you call it a flaw or a weakness, the truth is teams win with imperfect players all the time. They just build rosters and systems that maximize strengths and hide weaknesses. No one’s unexploitable in a 7 game series.

What recent contender started a 5 who couldn't protect the rim or hit 3s well?

I realise Sacramento hasn't had many winning teams in recent decades, so it might be unfamiliar, but teams don't succeed to that level in today's game with players like Sabonis starting in major roles... or Demar... or Lavine.

KAt and Jokic don’t protect the rim, Draymond can’t shoot, and Bam can’t do either. All starters on contenders. Teams win by maximizing strengths, not disqualifying players for perceived weaknesses. And Sabonis shot 41.7% from 3 last season, so that argument’s outdated anyway.

[One_and_Done]

I get what you’re saying, but that’s kind of a semantic difference. Whether you call it a flaw or a weakness, the truth is teams win with imperfect players all the time. They just build rosters and systems that maximize strengths and hide weaknesses. No one’s unexploitable in a 7 game series.

What recent contender started a 5 who couldn't protect the rim or hit 3s well?

I realise Sacramento hasn't had many winning teams in recent decades, so it might be unfamiliar, but teams don't succeed to that level in today's game with players like Sabonis starting in major roles... or Demar... or Lavine.

KAt and Jokic don’t protect the rim, Draymond can’t shoot, and Bam can’t do either. All starters on contenders. Teams win by maximizing strengths, not disqualifying players for perceived weaknesses. And Sabonis shot 41.7% from 3 last season, so that argument’s outdated anyway.

Yeh but I just explained why those 2 are exceptions, for being able to do things Sabonis can't.

Sabonis hit a high % on a low volume of mostly wide open shots. It's not the same.

We disagree. Teams win by eliminating weaknesses. That is a necessary, but insufficient condition for winning.