[SHAMS] De'Aaron Fox traded to Spurs, Zach Lavine to Kings

[Sixers in 4]

Feels light for Sacramento.

- LaVine is considered bad value on his contract.
- 2025 first will likely not convert and become two second rounders.
- 2027 spurs pick will likely not be very good with Wemby, Fox and young supporting cast almost certainly being a playoff roster
- that leaves the 2031 Minnesota pick which is more of a wild card because it's so far into the future.
- and then a bunch of second rounders

Great deal for the spurs, risky for Sacramento imo.

Fox wanted the super max. He was about to be even worse value. LaVine is well worth his contract if he can sustain his level of play I mean can is probably the wrong word probably if he will sustain his level is better. He is super talented probably an even better scorer than Fox when he is on.

Problem is those 2023-2024 numbers were god awful.

[MrBigShot]

Lavine is not bad value on his deal, when healthy he's good for ~23-25ppg on near 50/40/90

[uncleduck13]

As a Fox fan, I must admit I’m pretty disappointed by his lack of production as a Spur. In general, I wasn’t thrilled about the pairing with Wemby because he doesn’t provide the level of playmaking that would take Wemby’s game to the next level. Someone like Trae Young simply made more sense from a fit perspective. Aside from that, he just hasn’t looked like a needle mover in any way shape or form..which is unfortunate because Zach Lavine has actually made the Kings better. Before this trade most fans (especially myself) would’ve regarded Fox as the better player..but now I’m not so sure. Makes you question whether Fox himself played a big role in Sacramento’s mediocrity.

[TheZachAttack]

Lavine is not bad value on his deal, when healthy he's good for ~23-25ppg on near 50/40/90

I have never understood why Lavine has such a negative value perception. He's a legit 3-level scorer and efficient at all 3 levels. In a good way outside of injuries, I don't really think there's much of a difference between Lavine and Booker but Lavine has been on worse teams and hasn't had the playoff success.

[Dr Aki]

Lavine is not bad value on his deal, when healthy he's good for ~23-25ppg on near 50/40/90

I have never understood why Lavine has such a negative value perception. He's a legit 3-level scorer and efficient at all 3 levels. In a good way outside of injuries, I don't really think there's much of a difference between Lavine and Booker but Lavine has been on worse teams and hasn't had the playoff success.

It's because he wasn't a good efficiency scorer last year, AND he was a negative defender on top.

Players have up and down years, whudda thunk it?

[Mr Puddles]

Feels light for Sacramento.

- LaVine is considered bad value on his contract.
- 2025 first will likely not convert and become two second rounders.
- 2027 spurs pick will likely not be very good with Wemby, Fox and young supporting cast almost certainly being a playoff roster
- that leaves the 2031 Minnesota pick which is more of a wild card because it's so far into the future.
- and then a bunch of second rounders

Great deal for the spurs, risky for Sacramento imo.

Fox wanted the super max. He was about to be even worse value. LaVine is well worth his contract if he can sustain his level of play I mean can is probably the wrong word probably if he will sustain his level is better. He is super talented probably an even better scorer than Fox when he is on.

Problem is those 2023-2024 numbers were god awful.

I think you forgot to write something here? you quoted me but there is no post

[Sixers in 4]

Fox wanted the super max. He was about to be even worse value. LaVine is well worth his contract if he can sustain his level of play I mean can is probably the wrong word probably if he will sustain his level is better. He is super talented probably an even better scorer than Fox when he is on.

Problem is those 2023-2024 numbers were god awful.

I think you forgot to write something here? you quoted me but there is no post

Yeah I meant to say my original post still stood. I don't see much difference between LaVine and Fox when it comes to ranking them in the NBA tiers of players. Fox wanted a contract extension and at 29 it was going to make him a massive negative asset.

Lavine contract has 2.5 years left at around 120M eyeballing it until he is 31. You are paying a bit more upfront but don't have to extend him until he is 34 like fox in 1.5 years. I'll take it with the first round pick. Neither are really franchise cornerstone players to me so I'll take the guy who I don't have to extend soon and some additional assets.

I said at the time the Kings made out fine and I still think so.

[Mr Puddles]

I think you forgot to write something here? you quoted me but there is no post

Yeah I meant to say my original post still stood. I don't see much difference between LaVine and Fox when it comes to ranking them in the NBA tiers of players. Fox wanted a contract extension and at 29 it was going to make him a massive negative asset.

Lavine contract has 2.5 years left at around 120M eyeballing it until he is 31. You are paying a bit more upfront but don't have to extend him until he is 34 like fox in 1.5 years. I'll take it with the first round pick. Neither are really franchise cornerstone players to me so I'll take the guy who I don't have to extend soon and some additional assets.

I said at the time the Kings made out fine and I still think so.

OK thanks. Please continue to give me monthly updates.

[RoteSchroder]

As a Fox fan, I must admit I’m pretty disappointed by his lack of production as a Spur. In general, I wasn’t thrilled about the pairing with Wemby because he doesn’t provide the level of playmaking that would take Wemby’s game to the next level. Someone like Trae Young simply made more sense from a fit perspective. Aside from that, he just hasn’t looked like a needle mover in any way shape or form..which is unfortunate because Zach Lavine has actually made the Kings better. Before this trade most fans (especially myself) would’ve regarded Fox as the better player..but now I’m not so sure. Makes you question whether Fox himself played a big role in Sacramento’s mediocrity.

so Mike Brown was right?

[Sixers in 4]

I think you forgot to write something here? you quoted me but there is no post

Yeah I meant to say my original post still stood. I don't see much difference between LaVine and Fox when it comes to ranking them in the NBA tiers of players. Fox wanted a contract extension and at 29 it was going to make him a massive negative asset.

Lavine contract has 2.5 years left at around 120M eyeballing it until he is 31. You are paying a bit more upfront but don't have to extend him until he is 34 like fox in 1.5 years. I'll take it with the first round pick. Neither are really franchise cornerstone players to me so I'll take the guy who I don't have to extend soon and some additional assets.

I said at the time the Kings made out fine and I still think so.

OK thanks. Please continue to give me monthly updates.

After someone narco'd the thread, I only meant to draw attention to my earlier take—not yours. Feel free to defend your earlier take if you so choose, but my post was not about you, and it is not my concern if you are embarrassed or offended by having your previous post rehashed in the chain

My final thoughts are that Fox's value should be at its peak right now, and it will only decline after his next max extension. This thread is an excellent illustration of how sports fans like to just pile on based on a franchise past mistakes. It made perfect sense at the time to have a brief window with LaVine rather than commit and build around Fox for another six to seven years (1.5 seasons plus a maximum five-year extension). Kings made out fine at the time. Fox is not that guy you want to go all in committing to build a franchise around

The Spurs already have Wemby and he is on his rookie deal so it is less of an issue for them but they should have had better options and if they max Fox like most expect they are wasting the opportunity to bring in better talent at a max slot. They should have been aiming higher for a running mate for Wemby.

[SNPA]

Yeah I meant to say my original post still stood. I don't see much difference between LaVine and Fox when it comes to ranking them in the NBA tiers of players. Fox wanted a contract extension and at 29 it was going to make him a massive negative asset.

Lavine contract has 2.5 years left at around 120M eyeballing it until he is 31. You are paying a bit more upfront but don't have to extend him until he is 34 like fox in 1.5 years. I'll take it with the first round pick. Neither are really franchise cornerstone players to me so I'll take the guy who I don't have to extend soon and some additional assets.

I said at the time the Kings made out fine and I still think so.

OK thanks. Please continue to give me monthly updates.

I only intended to highlight my previous take after someone narco'ed the thread, not yours. Go ahead and defend your previous take in the thread if you want, but my post was not directed at you and if you are embarrassed by your previous take that is not my problem.

My final thoughts are Fox's value should be at its peak right now, and it will only decline after his next max extension. This thread is a prime example of how sports fans like to just pile on based on a franchise past mistakes. Kings made out fine at the time and it makes much more sense to have a short window with LaVine then commit and build around Fox for another six to seven years (1.5 seasons plus a five year max) he isn't that guy

I agree. It’s hard for Kings fans to admit but it’s true. Going all in on Fox for 6-7 years would have been a mistake.

[OxAndFox]

OK thanks. Please continue to give me monthly updates.

I only intended to highlight my previous take after someone narco'ed the thread, not yours. Go ahead and defend your previous take in the thread if you want, but my post was not directed at you and if you are embarrassed by your previous take that is not my problem.

My final thoughts are Fox's value should be at its peak right now, and it will only decline after his next max extension. This thread is a prime example of how sports fans like to just pile on based on a franchise past mistakes. Kings made out fine at the time and it makes much more sense to have a short window with LaVine then commit and build around Fox for another six to seven years (1.5 seasons plus a five year max) he isn't that guy

I agree. It’s hard for Kings fans to admit but it’s true. Going all in on Fox for 6-7 years would have been a mistake.

There is no denying there is some truth to this absolutely.

The questions I have/had around Fox are his injury issues. This is 2 seasons in a row, and the first round of the POs a couple of years back that Fox has been injured which severely limited his potential/all round game. So the question for me was, at what point do we say he is "injury prone". I put that in quotes because he doesn't seem to miss too many games, but he's been hampered by one thing or another for a large amount of time in his NBA career.
I was willing to give it until next season, but I also thought he should have gone in and got it fixed ASAP this season. There was no point to keep playing.

[Black Jack]

My big takeaway is, why didn't the Kings trade Fox instead of Halliburton originally

[Mr Puddles]

Yeah I meant to say my original post still stood. I don't see much difference between LaVine and Fox when it comes to ranking them in the NBA tiers of players. Fox wanted a contract extension and at 29 it was going to make him a massive negative asset.

Lavine contract has 2.5 years left at around 120M eyeballing it until he is 31. You are paying a bit more upfront but don't have to extend him until he is 34 like fox in 1.5 years. I'll take it with the first round pick. Neither are really franchise cornerstone players to me so I'll take the guy who I don't have to extend soon and some additional assets.

I said at the time the Kings made out fine and I still think so.

OK thanks. Please continue to give me monthly updates.

After someone narco'd the thread, I only meant to draw attention to my earlier take—not yours. Feel free to defend your earlier take if you so choose, but my post was not about you, and it is not my concern if you are embarrassed or offended by having your previous post rehashed in the chain

My final thoughts are that Fox's value should be at its peak right now, and it will only decline after his next max extension. This thread is an excellent illustration of how sports fans like to just pile on based on a franchise past mistakes. It made perfect sense at the time to have a brief window with LaVine rather than commit and build around Fox for another six to seven years (1.5 seasons plus a maximum five-year extension). Kings made out fine at the time. Fox is not that guy you want to go all in committing to build a franchise around

The Spurs already have Wemby and he is on his rookie deal so it is less of an issue for them but they should have had better options and if they max Fox like most expect they are wasting the opportunity to bring in better talent at a max slot. They should have been aiming higher for a running mate for Wemby.

You seem unnecessarily hostile for someone who apparently didn't mean for me to be part of this discussion lmao.

Thanks for drawing attention to your post though. Your thought leadership around here is highly appreciated.

[DrModesty]

My big takeaway is, why didn't the Kings trade Fox instead of Halliburton originally

When the Haliburton trade happened, Fox was viewed as a shaky asset. For example I believe that season he was quite high in the Bill Simmons bad contract draft. Haliburton had real value, as represented by Sabonis being viewed as a bad return for him by most people.

[sackings916]

As a Fox fan, I must admit I’m pretty disappointed by his lack of production as a Spur. In general, I wasn’t thrilled about the pairing with Wemby because he doesn’t provide the level of playmaking that would take Wemby’s game to the next level. Someone like Trae Young simply made more sense from a fit perspective. Aside from that, he just hasn’t looked like a needle mover in any way shape or form..which is unfortunate because Zach Lavine has actually made the Kings better. Before this trade most fans (especially myself) would’ve regarded Fox as the better player..but now I’m not so sure. Makes you question whether Fox himself played a big role in Sacramento’s mediocrity.

As a Kings fan Fox has been disappointing for a few seasons now. He’s a good player, but more of a fringe all star. He says he can get to any spot he wants and get any shot he wants, which is true, but the production just isn’t there consistently. His IQ is lacking, and he doesn’t seem to process fast enough to truly be an elite player. He’s without question not good enough to be a #1, but I question whether he’s good enough to be a #2.

[mcfly1204]

Fox strikes me as a 3rd/4th option, in a secondary playmaker role. A poor man's John Wall?

[Astaluego]

I thought it was a win for the Kings to trade Fox for Lavine and get a nice compensation in the process.
Now they need to make some more moves to balance the roster..
The Kings need a forward who can defend and they have plenty of scorers..
PJ Washington/J.Isaak (basically expiring) to the KINGS

Monk/Lavine/Murray/PJ/Sabonis
Carter/Ellis/LaRavia/Isaak/Valanciunas

The Mavs need elite scoring to stay afloat, until KI recovers, plus they can play together and with the idea of AD at the 4..PJ is not that indispensable.. DDR+2 SRP to MAVS...


5 the Magic need space and shooting..take a top 3 all-time player, even the current Klay would be a blessing, with all the gravity he generates..
Klay to the MAGIC

[Pattycakes]

Fox strikes me as a 3rd/4th option, in a secondary playmaker role. A poor man's John Wall?

So, basically higher volume Mike Conley w lower bbiq

[Chuck Everett]

Well, at least people are finally waking up to the fact that paying Fox a max contract will be crippling to the Spurs. That dude may have an all-star appearance under his belt, but he's totally underwhelming.