RealGM

BoogieTime wrote:Assist leader in the nba since the new year? Hali? No, the guy traded for him!

Read on Twitter

Now this is something you and I can agree on.

I'm not trying to be smarmy but I'd like some explanation from the "sign Monk" crowd. If we are pretenders now, while Monk is making $10 million. How does paying him more improve us and make us actual contenders? Is it that you're banking on further improvement from him? Is it that you're banking on further improvement from Murray? You think we'll add a draft pick and/or FA? Or a combo of the above? Do you consider him good enough to be part of our Big Three with Fox and Sabonis?

To me, he's a great value now. The moment you pay him that ends. And that new salary he'll be making will not be justified because of his defense and inconsistency. I guess the money has to be spent somewhere. It's just my opinion that nobody on our current roster or who we might draft will ever be good enough to be part of our "Big Three" so don't pay them as such and instead, use that cap space and those players to trade for someone who will.

FarBeyondDriven wrote:I'm not trying to be smarmy but I'd like some explanation from the "sign Monk" crowd. If we are pretenders now, while Monk is making $10 million. How does paying him more improve us and make us actual contenders? Is it that you're banking on further improvement from him? Is it that you're banking on further improvement from Murray? You think we'll add a draft pick and/or FA? Or a combo of the above? Do you consider him good enough to be part of our Big Three with Fox and Sabonis?

To me, he's a great value now. The moment you pay him that ends. And that new salary he'll be making will not be justified because of his defense and inconsistency. I guess the money has to be spent somewhere. It's just my opinion that nobody on our current roster or who we might draft will ever be good enough to be part of our "Big Three" so don't pay them as such and instead, use that cap space and those players to trade for someone who will.

The fact is the Kings aren't signing Monk for more than the early bird. Anyone suggesting different doesn't take into account just how difficult it is to do and what type of position that puts the Kings in for the next 4-5 years minimum. They need to address the challenges (that's putting it extremely mildly in this CBA) attributed to trading the players required for zero incoming salaries, ie Barnes/Huerter/Davion/whoever for let's say top 55 protected 2nd rounder. And teams with cap space, ie potentially a couple of them wanting to sign Malik, won't be doing a trade for the other players without significant incentive. ie 1st rounders. So after signing Malik your new Sacramento Kings don't have a 1st rounder to trade potentially until 2028 or 2029.
You also have no cap space to sign anyone. Can't use the MLE for a player or trade so your ability to get better is severely restricted this off season and not only have you not corrected the roster, your depth is even worse.

So, if anyone believes the Kings CAN do this, the only question you need to answer is this. Show the trades, the actual trades where a team will take on the necessary salary for the Kings to get down to paying Monk around that $25m figure.

The 2024-25 Sacramento Kings
Fox/Ellis
Monk/Duarte/Jones
Keegan
Lyles/Sasha
Sabonis

Now, I am firmly in the camp and always have been, that the Kings will sign Monk this off season. It's not even close at this stage. IMO the minimum a team needs to offer Monk would be close to 25m on average to pry him away. That's a huge risk on a guy that has been great in this specific role, but when you get $25m or more, you better not be averaging 26mpg, averaging 15pts and shooting 37% from range. His playmaking is fantastic off the bench when you have a PG that can play off-ball. How many teams have a Fox who is happy letting him take lead duties while playing off ball when they're both on the court?
If he is starting, it's as a 2 guard with an established PG. That will seriously diminish his effectiveness.

I say that if the Kings are a PO team, not a play in team, an actual PO team. If they fall, Monk is gone no matter what Sacramento pays him IMO.

FarBeyondDriven wrote:I'm not trying to be smarmy but I'd like some explanation from the "sign Monk" crowd. If we are pretenders now, while Monk is making $10 million. How does paying him more improve us and make us actual contenders? Is it that you're banking on further improvement from him? Is it that you're banking on further improvement from Murray? You think we'll add a draft pick and/or FA? Or a combo of the above? Do you consider him good enough to be part of our Big Three with Fox and Sabonis?

To me, he's a great value now. The moment you pay him that ends. And that new salary he'll be making will not be justified because of his defense and inconsistency. I guess the money has to be spent somewhere. It's just my opinion that nobody on our current roster or who we might draft will ever be good enough to be part of our "Big Three" so don't pay them as such and instead, use that cap space and those players to trade for someone who will.

pretenders are fine to the majority of the fanbase. It keeps the arena full and the team's local television ratings are solid with a competitive team. the ticket holders don't mind seeing a competitive lower seed playoff team. It's the minority of hardcore fans on that are championship or bust.

So, from that prism you don't want to get worse. L0sing Malik hurts substantially. The guy has been the teams third best player, has carried the bench, and I'm not even sure where this team would be without him.

Though he is only 26, and improved sizably from last year, has crucial on/off chemistry with the team, and has room to grow from his current around 20/7 in starters minutes.

not sure how much paying Malik market value of ~5 mil more hurts future moves other than removing contracts in the next year or two? I would say just get him in the fold, and then worry about trading for a future star. Losing him and trading for someone else could be standing in place

Also, I think the west is abnormally strong this year. You hope through attrition of the west that things could be better

At least we’re not here anymore.

I don't think it's a coincidence Keon is playing 27 MPG during that stretch. He makes some mistakes but with a consistent I really like his potential here.

Keegan is really giving pretty much every defensive step he's made back with his crap/worrying offensive progression from my vantage

Just nowhere near "third star" trajectory currently IMO

BoogieTime wrote:Keegan is really giving pretty much every defensive step he's made back with his crap/worrying offensive progression from my vantage

Just nowhere near "third star" trajectory currently IMO

Age 23 season for 4 different players:

Player A:
13.4 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.5 SPG, 0.1 BPG, 1.4 TOV, 2.3 PF on .467/.407/.859 splits, 56.3% TS%

Player B:
14.7 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 1.6 APG, 1.1 SPG, 0.7 BPG, 0.9 TOV, 2.7 PF on .456/.352/.824 splits, 56.9% TS%

Player C:
9.1 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.4 SPG, 0.6 BPG, 1.0 TOV, 2.2 PF on .510/.361/.844 splits, 62.0% TS%

Player D:
13.6 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 0.9 APG, 0.5 SPG, 0.3 BPG, 1.0 TOV, 1.5 PF on .480/.402/.826 splits, 61.9% TS%

Usage Rates:
Player A: 19.9%
Player B: 17.7%
Player C: 12.7%
Player D: 20.2%

I don't know who are these three other players, but I am not a fan of random comparisons of career trajectories because for every late bloomer, there is a MCW or Tyreke. I mean every players trajectory is different and not linear.

That's why we should evaluate his improvement individually. He started to try very hard on defense and I think it's working so far. That was what we need. And it vastly changed his career trajectory from efficient offensive 2nd option to efficient two-way player which I prefer. Still we have little indications on how will he perform in 2025-26. He can still be a two-way star, or disappoint us with lack of improvements on both ends.

Fox & Sabonis + efficient two-way forward in Keegan + defense oriented cheap starting guard in Keon + versatile experienced forward who can step up when needed in Barnes with the bench of Monk, Lyles, Huerter, Davion, Vezenkov and Len sounds like a winning formula, more than Fox & Sabonis + offense oriented 3rd star in Keegan as it still leaves Kings with a big hole in wing defense.

madskillz8 wrote:I don't know who are these three other players, but I am not a fan of random comparisons of career trajectories because for every late bloomer, there is a MCW or Tyreke. I mean every players trajectory is different and not linear.

That's why we should evaluate his improvement individually. He started to try very hard on defense and I think it's working so far. That was what we need. And it vastly changed his career trajectory from efficient offensive 2nd option to efficient two-way player which I prefer. Still we have little indications on how will he perform in 2025-26. He can still be a two-way star, or disappoint us with lack of improvements on both ends.

Fox & Sabonis + efficient two-way forward in Keegan + defense oriented cheap starting guard in Keon + versatile experienced forward who can step up when needed in Barnes with the bench of Monk, Lyles, Huerter, Davion, Vezenkov and Len sounds like a winning formula, more than Fox & Sabonis + offense oriented 3rd star in Keegan as it still leaves Kings with a big hole in wing defense.

Totally agree, I'm mostly pointing out the fact it's silly to expect a guy to become a third star by his second season exactly because of that fact. When I look at Keegan's growth I see a guy who has taken his defense to another level and while his shots aren't falling at the same rate, is getting his looks in a completely different way than he was last year. Last year he had a much higher three point rate because he was mostly catch and shoot guy or getting shots off DHO action and has been much more of a creator this year. He's finishing around the rim much stronger and has been willing to put the ball on the floor, he's really a totally different player than he was as a rookie. In my opinion, that's a lot of growth. Would it be great if he was still shooting 40% from deep, of course it would but I think he is on a very good trajectory. He's already the fourth best and most important player on a 48 win team.

For the record, the other three players are Khris Middleton, Mikal Bridges and Lauri Markkanen. Middleton was in year 3 at 23 and Lauri was in year 4.

codydaze wrote:

madskillz8 wrote:I don't know who are these three other players, but I am not a fan of random comparisons of career trajectories because for every late bloomer, there is a MCW or Tyreke. I mean every players trajectory is different and not linear.

That's why we should evaluate his improvement individually. He started to try very hard on defense and I think it's working so far. That was what we need. And it vastly changed his career trajectory from efficient offensive 2nd option to efficient two-way player which I prefer. Still we have little indications on how will he perform in 2025-26. He can still be a two-way star, or disappoint us with lack of improvements on both ends.

Fox & Sabonis + efficient two-way forward in Keegan + defense oriented cheap starting guard in Keon + versatile experienced forward who can step up when needed in Barnes with the bench of Monk, Lyles, Huerter, Davion, Vezenkov and Len sounds like a winning formula, more than Fox & Sabonis + offense oriented 3rd star in Keegan as it still leaves Kings with a big hole in wing defense.

Totally agree, I'm mostly pointing out the fact it's silly to expect a guy to become a third star by his second season exactly because of that fact. When I look at Keegan's growth I see a guy who has taken his defense to another level and while his shots aren't falling at the same rate, is getting his looks in a completely different way than he was last year. Last year he had a much higher three point rate because he was mostly catch and shoot guy or getting shots off DHO action and has been much more of a creator this year. He's finishing around the rim much stronger and has been willing to put the ball on the floor, he's really a totally different player than he was as a rookie. In my opinion, that's a lot of growth. Would it be great if he was still shooting 40% from deep, of course it would but I think he is on a very good trajectory. He's already the fourth best and most important player on a 48 win team.

For the record, the other three players are Khris Middleton, Mikal Bridges and Lauri Markkanen. Middleton was in year 3 at 23 and Lauri was in year 4.

? Your straw man is silly. the words "progression" and "trajectory"

Those were specific examples of late bloomers whoever they were I'm guessing, just as there are I'm guessing more examples of earlier bloomers. What Keegan has been showing on offense, the consistency, aggression, playmaking etc just isnt vibing with me. And the usage could be a problematic lack of aggression rather than gameplay

BoogieTime wrote:

codydaze wrote:

madskillz8 wrote:I don't know who are these three other players, but I am not a fan of random comparisons of career trajectories because for every late bloomer, there is a MCW or Tyreke. I mean every players trajectory is different and not linear.

That's why we should evaluate his improvement individually. He started to try very hard on defense and I think it's working so far. That was what we need. And it vastly changed his career trajectory from efficient offensive 2nd option to efficient two-way player which I prefer. Still we have little indications on how will he perform in 2025-26. He can still be a two-way star, or disappoint us with lack of improvements on both ends.

Fox & Sabonis + efficient two-way forward in Keegan + defense oriented cheap starting guard in Keon + versatile experienced forward who can step up when needed in Barnes with the bench of Monk, Lyles, Huerter, Davion, Vezenkov and Len sounds like a winning formula, more than Fox & Sabonis + offense oriented 3rd star in Keegan as it still leaves Kings with a big hole in wing defense.

Totally agree, I'm mostly pointing out the fact it's silly to expect a guy to become a third star by his second season exactly because of that fact. When I look at Keegan's growth I see a guy who has taken his defense to another level and while his shots aren't falling at the same rate, is getting his looks in a completely different way than he was last year. Last year he had a much higher three point rate because he was mostly catch and shoot guy or getting shots off DHO action and has been much more of a creator this year. He's finishing around the rim much stronger and has been willing to put the ball on the floor, he's really a totally different player than he was as a rookie. In my opinion, that's a lot of growth. Would it be great if he was still shooting 40% from deep, of course it would but I think he is on a very good trajectory. He's already the fourth best and most important player on a 48 win team.

For the record, the other three players are Khris Middleton, Mikal Bridges and Lauri Markkanen. Middleton was in year 3 at 23 and Lauri was in year 4.

? Your straw man is silly. the words "progression" and "trajectory"

Those were specific examples of late bloomers whoever they were I'm guessing, just as there are I'm guessing more examples of earlier bloomers. What Keegan has been showing on offense, the consistency, aggression, playmaking etc just isnt vibing with me. And the usage could be a problematic lack of aggression rather than gameplay

A was Middleton.
B was Keegan.
C was Mikal.
D was Lauri.

And maybe you aren't expecting him to be that third star right now (though it sure does seem like it), but the rest of my post is saying how he absolutely is progressing. His defense being the biggest thing but also the way he has been getting his offense. He's improved in literally every statistic except his 3P% (he's made 135 so far, 157 makes at the same attempts would match last year's %).

So, in light of the fact that I'm now not literally the only Kings fan or media member acknowledging the pending doom around Monk's next contract and what it could potentially mean to the Kings I'll just recap some thoughts from my vantage. I will personally be looking for the team to dump a lot of salary and potentially need draft capital to do so this summer to secure Monk.

1. The contracts they will be dumping, potentially Barnes/Huerter/Davion/Duarte/Sasha hold little on court value. The team is now better that Huerter is injured to start the more capable impact Keon, and more athleticism on the bench. Barnes was a blasé, non needle moving player before he lost a step and started putting up soundly negative stats. Maybe Sasha rounds out? But he has little athleticism. It could be argued dumping these players is addition by subtraction just to relieve the locker room of ill fitting players and playing younger, more hungry players.

2. Monk, may even be the team's second best player this year given Fox's inconsistencies. But, with Keegan failing to reach solid offensive ground, and only Domas and an inconsistent Fox otherwise, Monk's contribution to the team has been as Tim Maxwell described IMO - the team maybe not making the playin without him. He is of high importance as of now.

3. We ned to walk before we run. We have just experienced near two decades of crap. The team is selling out every game, and the tv ratings are solid. So IMO even an impetuous/meddling Vivek probably wouldnt be looking ahead to how we become championship or bust without making sure we don't lose ground substantially by losing Malik. I think we need to secure Monk, than in future season's look for the potential deal to take the next step. Malik, being a gamer, relatively young and improving and putting up a near 20/7 in starters minutes should take precedent over using assets to trade for players like Kuzma/Grant etc anyhow, and trading for players like Donovan Mitchell/Lauri who actually would be an improvement to Monk would cost way more capital and they might not even be in grasp

Sounds like Huerter may be out the rest of the year.

Also for Monk, obviously I love him here and want him to stay so take it with a grain of salt but any team offering him 4 years 100 million would be making a big mistake. He is in an ideal role right now, I think his value diminishes heavily if he's in the starting unit. He would really need to find another perfect landing spot in order for him to be worth that contract. Just looking at other recent contracts for 6MOY candidates:

Bobby Portis 4/49
Naz Reid 3/42
Jordan Clarkson 4/52

Obviously he's a lot younger than Clarkson but I would put his value around where Naz Reid is at, maybe a bit more valuable but I don't think the gap is all that big. Certainly not 10 million a year different.

BoogieTime wrote:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

So he will stay in Sacramento then. The ONLY team that is a PO team that could or would realistically sign him is Orlando. They need to want him too.

Think you need to come up with a scenario. I will lay out the teams with cap space, which includes renouncing all team options possible to make the most cap space available.
Please come up with a way forward with trades etc that gets enough cap space to sign Monk for whatever contract you would sign him for.

EDIT: the below are numbers I have done quickly so if anyone finds innaccuracy in them please let me know.

Remember the below totals are if the teams renounce ALL of their options, including rookie contracts that haven't been taken up.

Philly - $76m
Won't renounce Maxey obviously so the cap space looks like $71m
Will they renounce Harris, Buddy and co to sign Monk with Maxey taking max space? Or will they renounce them just to trade for Barnes/Huerter? Don't think so.

Detroit - $75m
Ivey/Cade/Grimes/Sasser. Don't think a Monk destination. Trading for Barnes/Huerter? Don't think so either. Cap space is nowhere near that too with cap holds they definitely keep.

Orlando - $62m
The big Monk destination. Have the space and the opportunity to start next to Suggs. Does it work with Paolo/Franz/Suggs having the ball too? Other guards Cole/Black/Jett.
Not a destination for Barnes/Huerter IMO.

Utah - $54m
Will be looking to up Lauri with the cap space they have and most likely can't afford Monk after that. A Barnes/Huerter destination? Doesn't seem like a Danny Ainge move.

Toronto - $43m
Olynyk/Trent cap hold totals around $32m.

OKC - $41m
Cap holds take up most of this. Won't keep Hayward? Can't see them as a destination for any of the players we're talking about.

Charlotte - $40m
Have the space for Monk. Can't see him deciding to go back to the Hornets. Would they trade for a couple of vets who are good character though? Potentially.

Pacers - $36m
They're not going to renounce Pascal. End of cap space.

Spurs - $34m
Can see them cutting loose of Graham to make this space more realistic. A Monk destination? Wouldn't think so unless he is the starting PG.

Wizards - $22m
No space for Monk. Barnes/Huerter? Don't think so.

Bulls - $16m
Not renouncing DDR/Pat Williams.

Rockets - $15m
Not declining team option on Jalen Green. No space.

Teams with TPEs large enough to take Barnes/Huerter.
Atlanta Hawks (John Collins trade) - $23m
Brooklyn Nets (Dinwiddie trade) - $20m

OxAndFox wrote:Remember the below totals are if the teams renounce ALL of their options, including rookie contracts that haven't been taken up.

Philly - $76m
Won't renounce Maxey obviously so the cap space looks like $71m
Will they renounce Harris, Buddy and co to sign Monk with Maxey taking max space? Or will they renounce them just to trade for Barnes/Huerter? Don't think so.

Detroit - $75m
Ivey/Cade/Grimes/Sasser. Don't think a Monk destination. Trading for Barnes/Huerter? Don't think so either. Cap space is nowhere near that too with cap holds they definitely keep.

Orlando - $62m
The big Monk destination. Have the space and the opportunity to start next to Suggs. Does it work with Paolo/Franz/Suggs having the ball too? Other guards Cole/Black/Jett.
Not a destination for Barnes/Huerter IMO.

Utah - $54m
Will be looking to up Lauri with the cap space they have and most likely can't afford Monk after that. A Barnes/Huerter destination? Doesn't seem like a Danny Ainge move.

Toronto - $43m
Olynyk/Trent cap hold totals around $32m.

OKC - $41m
Cap holds take up most of this. Won't keep Hayward? Can't see them as a destination for any of the players we're talking about.

Charlotte - $40m
Have the space for Monk. Can't see him deciding to go back to the Hornets. Would they trade for a couple of vets who are good character though? Potentially.

Pacers - $36m
They're not going to renounce Pascal. End of cap space.

Spurs - $34m
Can see them cutting loose of Graham to make this space more realistic. A Monk destination? Wouldn't think so unless he is the starting PG.

Wizards - $22m
No space for Monk. Barnes/Huerter? Don't think so.

Bulls - $16m
Not renouncing DDR/Pat Williams.

Rockets - $15m
Not declining team option on Jalen Green. No space.

Teams with TPEs large enough to take Barnes/Huerter.
Atlanta Hawks (John Collins trade) - $23m
Brooklyn Nets (Dinwiddie trade) - $20m

Yeah, I think Orlando is the only real threat to lure away Monk and are they really ready to lock into that core at this point because that's what they'd be doing by giving Monk a big contract.

Philly will probably chase Paul George and doubt they would be interested in Monk regardless.

OxAndFox wrote:

BoogieTime wrote:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

So he will stay in Sacramento then. The ONLY team that is a PO team that could or would realistically sign him is Orlando. They need to want him too.

Think you need to come up with a scenario. I will lay out the teams with cap space, which includes renouncing all team options possible to make the most cap space available.
Please come up with a way forward with trades etc that gets enough cap space to sign Monk for whatever contract you would sign him for.

EDIT: the below are numbers I have done quickly so if anyone finds innaccuracy in them please let me know.

not hard. looks like a number of teams that could use space for assets or could use Monk who might be one of the top FAs to potentially leave their teams.