Wizop wrote:I don't expect the Pacers to try to be worse this year and moving Siakam does that.
Can you give me some clarity on how the pacers aren't going to be significantly worse this season after losing their starting Center to another team, and their starting Point guard won't be back until next season?
This just seems like a really good opportunity to tank and be good again in 26-27 when you have a fully healthy roster.
Obviously, they'll be lesser without Haliburton (and Myles). However, we're pretty confident in Nembhard. And with Pascal, there's still a solid scorer. And there's a ton of other talent on the roster. We think we could still make a play-in. And, we just want to let the young guys keep producing and see how they impact winning.
And then, there's just little interest in having to re-develop the roster for another 3-4 years down the line by having to develop draft picks, or finding a new PF option.
Wizop wrote:I don't expect the Pacers to try to be worse this year and moving Siakam does that.
Can you give me some clarity on how the pacers aren't going to be significantly worse this season after losing their starting Center to another team, and their starting Point guard won't be back until next season?
This just seems like a really good opportunity to tank and be good again in 26-27 when you have a fully healthy roster.
Obviously, they'll be lesser without Haliburton (and Myles). However, we're pretty confident in Nembhard. And with Pascal, there's still a solid scorer. And there's a ton of other talent on the roster. We think we could still make a play-in. And, we just want to let the young guys keep producing and see how they impact winning.
And then, there's just little interest in having to re-develop the roster for another 3-4 years down the line by having to develop draft picks, or finding a new PF option.
From the outside that seems like a mistake. Now is the chance to reset around Hali for years after he returns.
longfellow44 wrote: Can you give me some clarity on how the pacers aren't going to be significantly worse this season after losing their starting Center to another team, and their starting Point guard won't be back until next season?
This just seems like a really good opportunity to tank and be good again in 26-27 when you have a fully healthy roster.
Obviously, they'll be lesser without Haliburton (and Myles). However, we're pretty confident in Nembhard. And with Pascal, there's still a solid scorer. And there's a ton of other talent on the roster. We think we could still make a play-in. And, we just want to let the young guys keep producing and see how they impact winning.
And then, there's just little interest in having to re-develop the roster for another 3-4 years down the line by having to develop draft picks, or finding a new PF option.
From the outside that seems like a mistake. Now is the chance to reset around Hali for years after he returns.
I don’t know. Could just be one year off and return to major playoff runs, especially as Nembhard, Nesmith, Siakam and others continue to grow and shine. Even if it takes Hali 2 years to return to his full form, there’s Nembhard and McConnell to continue to contribute to the PG spot that it seems silly to burn 2-4 years of the prime of all these guys and let them get more expensive across the board. And with the fact that so few guys stay with any team for 5 years (at this point for Indy, it’s just TJ McConnell), planning on tanking and drafting and developing new young guys means 3-4 years of rebuilding?
It’s always fun to picture a rebuild or tank being super easy and just one year, but it just doesn’t often happen that easy. And what do you do when you end up with the 10th pick and no prime prospect to develop in that gaping spot you just created? Especially in a trade that doesn’t solve your other hole at starting C either?
basketballwacko2 wrote:IF Lavine has a big year and is then expiring in 26-27 after opting in on his player option, can the Pacers move him for assets and keep the picks from the OP?
The only realistic way we receive assets for Lavine is if we take on additional salary. Taking on additional salary can have its benefits, particularly if we plan on operating over the cap in the following season(s).
Trading Lavine (expiring) for Player(s) (non-expiring salary) + assets is a route we could explore. Of course, the likelihood that a team is paying assets for a $49 million Lavine is infinitely small.
Yeah unless he as a huge year in 25/26 I'd guess to move him in the off season the Pacers would need to take back 75-80% of his salary $49 million. I'd try to get that $40 million broke up in 2 pieces and not more than 2 years. I doubt the picks coming back would be more than 2nds. Realistically I can't see much value in LaVine even if he has a big 25/26.
basketballwacko2 wrote:IF Lavine has a big year and is then expiring in 26-27 after opting in on his player option, can the Pacers move him for assets and keep the picks from the OP?
The only realistic way we receive assets for Lavine is if we take on additional salary. Taking on additional salary can have its benefits, particularly if we plan on operating over the cap in the following season(s).
Trading Lavine (expiring) for Player(s) (non-expiring salary) + assets is a route we could explore. Of course, the likelihood that a team is paying assets for a $49 million Lavine is infinitely small.
Yeah unless he as a huge year in 25/26 I'd guess to move him in the off season the Pacers would need to take back 75-80% of his salary $49 million. I'd try to get that $40 million broke up in 2 pieces and not more than 2 years. I doubt the picks coming back would be more than 2nds. Realistically I can't see much value in LaVine even if he has a big 25/26.
The vision I had is, if something good is available at the deadline in 26/27 take it. If not, let him expire and have Hali, a ton of young talent and a good cap situation to start 27 (which is when it can be assured Hali will be back to full form).
Scoot McGroot wrote: Obviously, they'll be lesser without Haliburton (and Myles). However, we're pretty confident in Nembhard. And with Pascal, there's still a solid scorer. And there's a ton of other talent on the roster. We think we could still make a play-in. And, we just want to let the young guys keep producing and see how they impact winning.
And then, there's just little interest in having to re-develop the roster for another 3-4 years down the line by having to develop draft picks, or finding a new PF option.
From the outside that seems like a mistake. Now is the chance to reset around Hali for years after he returns.
I don’t know. Could just be one year off and return to major playoff runs, especially as Nembhard, Nesmith, Siakam and others continue to grow and shine. Even if it takes Hali 2 years to return to his full form, there’s Nembhard and McConnell to continue to contribute to the PG spot that it seems silly to burn 2-4 years of the prime of all these guys and let them get more expensive across the board. And with the fact that so few guys stay with any team for 5 years (at this point for Indy, it’s just TJ McConnell), planning on tanking and drafting and developing new young guys means 3-4 years of rebuilding?
It’s always fun to picture a rebuild or tank being super easy and just one year, but it just doesn’t often happen that easy. And what do you do when you end up with the 10th pick and no prime prospect to develop in that gaping spot you just created? Especially in a trade that doesn’t solve your other hole at starting C either?
The flip side is that McConnell will be 35 and Siakam will be 33 by the time the Pacers are ready to makes noise in the playoffs again (and this assumes they solve the hole at center).
cbosh4mvp wrote: Jarret Allen isn’t winning you anything. Garland won’t show up in the playoffs. Mobley is a glorified dunk man. Mitchell has some experience but is a liability on defense. To me, the Cavs are a treadmill team.
SA37 wrote:That's a wild package for a guy who has only been an all-star 3 times in a weak Eastern Conference and an all-NBA guy twice in his career.
The recency bias for Siakam on these boards is at its peak.
He fits with Sac. Kings aren’t getting tier one fits next to Sabonis (Chet/Mobley/etc) so tier two with championship experience makes sense.
For Sac to have a core that is a legit playoff team for three years is massive for the franchise. Then Sabonis and Siakam’s salary drops off and they reboot having all their picks.
This deal gives Kings fan hope for the next few years, currently there is no hope. It’s blah as far as we can see.
I would argue this is, at best, a lateral move unless more moves followed.
Siakam brings a lot more versatility and defense than Lavine, but I don't think Siakam has any elite skills. Lavine, at least, is an elite shooter. Even if people think Siakam is an upgrade, I'd argue it's minimal. And paying 3 1sts -- 2 unprotected -- for a minor upgrade is a massive overpay for a team that, imo, can't afford to lose draft capital. Perhaps most importantly, the West is stacked and I don't think Siakam makes the Kings better than San Antonio, Memphis, and Dallas, who are the most likely teams they'd be competing with for a play-in berth.
SA37 wrote:That's a wild package for a guy who has only been an all-star 3 times in a weak Eastern Conference and an all-NBA guy twice in his career.
The recency bias for Siakam on these boards is at its peak.
He fits with Sac. Kings aren’t getting tier one fits next to Sabonis (Chet/Mobley/etc) so tier two with championship experience makes sense.
For Sac to have a core that is a legit playoff team for three years is massive for the franchise. Then Sabonis and Siakam’s salary drops off and they reboot having all their picks.
This deal gives Kings fan hope for the next few years, currently there is no hope. It’s blah as far as we can see.
I would argue this is, at best, a lateral move unless more moves followed.
Siakam brings a lot more versatility and defense than Lavine, but I don't think Siakam has any elite skills. Lavine, at least, is an elite shooter. Even if people think Siakam is an upgrade, I'd argue it's minimal. And paying 3 1sts -- 2 unprotected -- for a minor upgrade is a massive overpay for a team that, imo, can't afford to lose draft capital. Perhaps most importantly, the West is stacked and I don't think Siakam makes the Kings better than San Antonio, Memphis, and Dallas, who are the most likely teams they'd be competing with for a play-in berth.
I don't think most Kings fans would agree. Siakam allows Murray to play SF, that is a huge difference which makes the Kings no longer undersized (important with Sabonis). It also allows a bigger role for Ellis, another win. The defense is just better and that's the problem that needs addressing.
Why not take a run for three season and then start again with all the picks? What else is Sac going to do for the next couple seasons? Sitting around the 9-12 seed is the worst case scenario. A front line of Sabonis/Siakam/Murray is way better I'd argue. It's at least hope and a direction, that's more than the Kings have now.
SA37 wrote:That's a wild package for a guy who has only been an all-star 3 times in a weak Eastern Conference and an all-NBA guy twice in his career.
The recency bias for Siakam on these boards is at its peak.
He was traded for 3 1sts and expiring salary. Maybe this deal is 1 1st too many?
As I mentioned in my response above to SNPA, given how strong the West is, I don't see this moving the needle for Sacramento. San Antonio (Fox, healthy Wemby, improved Castle) and Dallas (Flagg, eventually Kyire comes back, + full training camp) should do better than they did last year. Memphis is still going to be a good team with Morant, JJJ, and Jaylen Wells + whatever Jerome brings + the improvement from Edey and Aldama.
SNPA wrote:He fits with Sac. Kings aren’t getting tier one fits next to Sabonis (Chet/Mobley/etc) so tier two with championship experience makes sense.
For Sac to have a core that is a legit playoff team for three years is massive for the franchise. Then Sabonis and Siakam’s salary drops off and they reboot having all their picks.
This deal gives Kings fan hope for the next few years, currently there is no hope. It’s blah as far as we can see.
I would argue this is, at best, a lateral move unless more moves followed.
Siakam brings a lot more versatility and defense than Lavine, but I don't think Siakam has any elite skills. Lavine, at least, is an elite shooter. Even if people think Siakam is an upgrade, I'd argue it's minimal. And paying 3 1sts -- 2 unprotected -- for a minor upgrade is a massive overpay for a team that, imo, can't afford to lose draft capital. Perhaps most importantly, the West is stacked and I don't think Siakam makes the Kings better than San Antonio, Memphis, and Dallas, who are the most likely teams they'd be competing with for a play-in berth.
I don't think most Kings fans would agree. Siakam allows Murray to play SF, that is a huge difference which makes the Kings no longer undersized (important with Sabonis). It also allows a bigger role for Ellis, another win. The defense is just better and that's the problem that needs addressing.
Why not take a run for three season and then start again with all the picks? What else is Sac going to do for the next couple seasons? Sitting around the 9-12 seed is the worst case scenario. A front line of Sabonis/Siakam/Murray is way better I'd argue. It's at least hope and a direction, that's more than the Kings have now.
I don't think Siakam moves the Kings from that 9-12 range (unless other moves follow).
Denver, OKC, the Lakers, Minnesota, Golden St, Houston, the Clippers, and Dallas (once Irving returns) are all significantly better than Sacramento for the next 1-2 seasons. That leaves Sacramento fighting with Memphis and San Antonio for spots 9 & 10, and I think both of those teams would still be better than Sacramento.
So while I agree Sacramento might have a more balanced team and would improve defensively, I don't see it moving Sacramento out of play-in territory.
If I were Sacramento, I'd probably keep trying to move Monk and DeRozan for assets and give those minutes to Carter/Ellis and then invest heavily in scouting and player development to make the most of the draft capital + to find undrafter prospects. Basically, following the OKC/San Antonio playbook of rebuilding.
SA37 wrote: I would argue this is, at best, a lateral move unless more moves followed.
Siakam brings a lot more versatility and defense than Lavine, but I don't think Siakam has any elite skills. Lavine, at least, is an elite shooter. Even if people think Siakam is an upgrade, I'd argue it's minimal. And paying 3 1sts -- 2 unprotected -- for a minor upgrade is a massive overpay for a team that, imo, can't afford to lose draft capital. Perhaps most importantly, the West is stacked and I don't think Siakam makes the Kings better than San Antonio, Memphis, and Dallas, who are the most likely teams they'd be competing with for a play-in berth.
I don't think most Kings fans would agree. Siakam allows Murray to play SF, that is a huge difference which makes the Kings no longer undersized (important with Sabonis). It also allows a bigger role for Ellis, another win. The defense is just better and that's the problem that needs addressing.
Why not take a run for three season and then start again with all the picks? What else is Sac going to do for the next couple seasons? Sitting around the 9-12 seed is the worst case scenario. A front line of Sabonis/Siakam/Murray is way better I'd argue. It's at least hope and a direction, that's more than the Kings have now.
I don't think Siakam moves the Kings from that 9-12 range (unless other moves follow).
Denver, OKC, the Lakers, Minnesota, Golden St, Houston, the Clippers, and Dallas (once Irving returns) are all significantly better than Sacramento for the next 1-2 seasons. That leaves Sacramento fighting with Memphis and San Antonio for spots 9 & 10, and I think both of those teams would still be better than Sacramento.
So while I agree Sacramento might have a more balanced team and would improve defensively, I don't see it moving Sacramento out of play-in territory.
If I were Sacramento, I'd probably keep trying to move Monk and DeRozan for assets and give those minutes to Carter/Ellis and then invest heavily in scouting and player development to make the most of the draft capital + to find undrafter prospects. Basically, following the OKC/San Antonio playbook of rebuilding.
So be mediocre and get mediocre picks and hope one hits.
Sac has tried this...for a couple decades.
All those teams you list will not hit. Some will fall out. GSW are old as dirt. James is even older than dirt. Rudy is showing his age too. The Clippers might be in a bad spot soon. Flagg is a kid whose timeframe aligns with Lively, but they are trying to win with a hurt Irving and an often hurt AD. Houston could excel, or it could be FVV pushing them along until he drops off. It's OKC and Denver that are the only sure things...barring injury.
The west will be brutal but teams aren't assured of reaching their potential, Kings included. But a Sabonis/Siakam/DDR core backed by Murray/Ellis/Monk/Dennis is competitive. That's what Sac fans want, a chance. Currently...no chance.
Find a Kings fan that wants to go the 12th pick again route. Good luck.
I also think you underestimate how much LaVine drags the team down. For a team like Indy, who is setting up for a future with Hali having a guy like LaVine can work in their favor. For a team like Sac living in the now, ugh.
SNPA wrote:From the outside that seems like a mistake. Now is the chance to reset around Hali for years after he returns.
I don’t know. Could just be one year off and return to major playoff runs, especially as Nembhard, Nesmith, Siakam and others continue to grow and shine. Even if it takes Hali 2 years to return to his full form, there’s Nembhard and McConnell to continue to contribute to the PG spot that it seems silly to burn 2-4 years of the prime of all these guys and let them get more expensive across the board. And with the fact that so few guys stay with any team for 5 years (at this point for Indy, it’s just TJ McConnell), planning on tanking and drafting and developing new young guys means 3-4 years of rebuilding?
It’s always fun to picture a rebuild or tank being super easy and just one year, but it just doesn’t often happen that easy. And what do you do when you end up with the 10th pick and no prime prospect to develop in that gaping spot you just created? Especially in a trade that doesn’t solve your other hole at starting C either?
The flip side is that McConnell will be 35 and Siakam will be 33 by the time the Pacers are ready to makes noise in the playoffs again (and this assumes they solve the hole at center).
And McConnell will be the 3rd PG at that point at best, and a Siakam plays a game that isn’t predicated on athleticism and looks like it will age well?
I just don’t think Indy will go the tank route. Because it then also requires you to start making tough decisions on key guys like a Nesmith and Nembhard, who would be coming for re ups before you’re ready to compete again, and all of a sudden you only have Hali as a piece.
SNPA wrote:He fits with Sac. Kings aren’t getting tier one fits next to Sabonis (Chet/Mobley/etc) so tier two with championship experience makes sense.
For Sac to have a core that is a legit playoff team for three years is massive for the franchise. Then Sabonis and Siakam’s salary drops off and they reboot having all their picks.
This deal gives Kings fan hope for the next few years, currently there is no hope. It’s blah as far as we can see.
I would argue this is, at best, a lateral move unless more moves followed.
Siakam brings a lot more versatility and defense than Lavine, but I don't think Siakam has any elite skills. Lavine, at least, is an elite shooter. Even if people think Siakam is an upgrade, I'd argue it's minimal. And paying 3 1sts -- 2 unprotected -- for a minor upgrade is a massive overpay for a team that, imo, can't afford to lose draft capital. Perhaps most importantly, the West is stacked and I don't think Siakam makes the Kings better than San Antonio, Memphis, and Dallas, who are the most likely teams they'd be competing with for a play-in berth.
I don't think most Kings fans would agree. Siakam allows Murray to play SF, that is a huge difference which makes the Kings no longer undersized (important with Sabonis). It also allows a bigger role for Ellis, another win. The defense is just better and that's the problem that needs addressing.
Why not take a run for three season and then start again with all the picks? What else is Sac going to do for the next couple seasons? Sitting around the 9-12 seed is the worst case scenario. A front line of Sabonis/Siakam/Murray is way better I'd argue. It's at least hope and a direction, that's more than the Kings have now.
We’ve SEEN Siakam immediately elevate teams into championship contenders. We’ve also SEEN Lavine actively “not help” teams be better. Chicago was better after dealing him away. What are we doing here in saying that Lavine to Siakam is “at best, lateral”?
SNPA wrote:the vision I had is, if something good is available at the deadline in 26/27 take it. If not, let him expire and have Hali, a ton of young talent and a good cap situation to start 27 (which is when it can be assured Hali will be back to full form).
unless I'm off a year, almost the entire Pacer roster will be extension eligible before then so the math could be very different.
Please edit long quotes to only show what puts your new message into context.
SNPA wrote:I don't think most Kings fans would agree. Siakam allows Murray to play SF, that is a huge difference which makes the Kings no longer undersized (important with Sabonis). It also allows a bigger role for Ellis, another win. The defense is just better and that's the problem that needs addressing.
Why not take a run for three season and then start again with all the picks? What else is Sac going to do for the next couple seasons? Sitting around the 9-12 seed is the worst case scenario. A front line of Sabonis/Siakam/Murray is way better I'd argue. It's at least hope and a direction, that's more than the Kings have now.
I don't think Siakam moves the Kings from that 9-12 range (unless other moves follow).
Denver, OKC, the Lakers, Minnesota, Golden St, Houston, the Clippers, and Dallas (once Irving returns) are all significantly better than Sacramento for the next 1-2 seasons. That leaves Sacramento fighting with Memphis and San Antonio for spots 9 & 10, and I think both of those teams would still be better than Sacramento.
So while I agree Sacramento might have a more balanced team and would improve defensively, I don't see it moving Sacramento out of play-in territory.
If I were Sacramento, I'd probably keep trying to move Monk and DeRozan for assets and give those minutes to Carter/Ellis and then invest heavily in scouting and player development to make the most of the draft capital + to find undrafter prospects. Basically, following the OKC/San Antonio playbook of rebuilding.
So be mediocre and get mediocre picks and hope one hits.
Sac has tried this...for a couple decades.
All those teams you list will not hit. Some will fall out. GSW are old as dirt. James is even older than dirt. Rudy is showing his age too. The Clippers might be in a bad spot soon. Flagg is a kid whose timeframe aligns with Lively, but they are trying to win with a hurt Irving and an often hurt AD. Houston could excel, or it could be FVV pushing them along until he drops off. It's OKC and Denver that are the only sure things...barring injury.
The west will be brutal but teams aren't assured of reaching their potential, Kings included. But a Sabonis/Siakam/DDR core backed by Murray/Ellis/Monk/Dennis is competitive. That's what Sac fans want, a chance. Currently...no chance.
Find a Kings fan that wants to go the 12th pick again route. Good luck.
I also think you underestimate how much LaVine drags the team down. For a team like Indy, who is setting up for a future with Hali having a guy like LaVine can work in their favor. For a team like Sac living in the now, ugh.
Lavine drags a team down...but boy would he be great in Indy! is a heck of a take.
In any case, Sacramento has plenty of teams it can look to for how a small market team can become relevant. OKC, Indiana, and San Antonio are the best of the bunch. Memphis has been good, too. The main lesson here is: you can't escape needing good management and a player development program/coaching. These teams have all done very well without having obscenely high draft picks.
If I were Sacramento, I'd go hire someone high up in San Antonio or OKC's front office to be GM and then I'd hire Mike Malone as head coach who, at 53, can be someone Sacramento keeps around for 10-15 years while developing assistants that might eventually replace him (I'd look to what Miami has done both at the coaching level and FO level). If Malone is unwilling to join Sacramento, I'd look at Taylor Jenkins who, at 40, is just getting started.
SA37 wrote: I don't think Siakam moves the Kings from that 9-12 range (unless other moves follow).
Denver, OKC, the Lakers, Minnesota, Golden St, Houston, the Clippers, and Dallas (once Irving returns) are all significantly better than Sacramento for the next 1-2 seasons. That leaves Sacramento fighting with Memphis and San Antonio for spots 9 & 10, and I think both of those teams would still be better than Sacramento.
So while I agree Sacramento might have a more balanced team and would improve defensively, I don't see it moving Sacramento out of play-in territory.
If I were Sacramento, I'd probably keep trying to move Monk and DeRozan for assets and give those minutes to Carter/Ellis and then invest heavily in scouting and player development to make the most of the draft capital + to find undrafter prospects. Basically, following the OKC/San Antonio playbook of rebuilding.
So be mediocre and get mediocre picks and hope one hits.
Sac has tried this...for a couple decades.
All those teams you list will not hit. Some will fall out. GSW are old as dirt. James is even older than dirt. Rudy is showing his age too. The Clippers might be in a bad spot soon. Flagg is a kid whose timeframe aligns with Lively, but they are trying to win with a hurt Irving and an often hurt AD. Houston could excel, or it could be FVV pushing them along until he drops off. It's OKC and Denver that are the only sure things...barring injury.
The west will be brutal but teams aren't assured of reaching their potential, Kings included. But a Sabonis/Siakam/DDR core backed by Murray/Ellis/Monk/Dennis is competitive. That's what Sac fans want, a chance. Currently...no chance.
Find a Kings fan that wants to go the 12th pick again route. Good luck.
I also think you underestimate how much LaVine drags the team down. For a team like Indy, who is setting up for a future with Hali having a guy like LaVine can work in their favor. For a team like Sac living in the now, ugh.
Lavine drags a team down...but boy would he be great in Indy! is a heck of a take.
In any case, Sacramento has plenty of teams it can look to for how a small market team can become relevant. OKC, Indiana, and San Antonio are the best of the bunch. Memphis has been good, too. The main lesson here is: you can't escape needing good management and a player development program/coaching. These teams have all done very well without having obscenely high draft picks.
If I were Sacramento, I'd go hire someone high up in San Antonio or OKC's front office to be GM and then I'd hire Mike Malone as head coach who, at 53, can be someone Sacramento keeps around for 10-15 years while developing assistants that might eventually replace him (I'd look to what Miami has done both at the coaching level and FO level). If Malone is unwilling to join Sacramento, I'd look at Taylor Jenkins who, at 40, is just getting started.
I doubt Malone will come back after how the organization treated him last time around.
JazzMatt13 wrote:just because I think aliens probably have to do with JFK, doesn't mean my theory that Jazz will never get Wiggins, isn't true.
ReggiesKnicks wrote: The only realistic way we receive assets for Lavine is if we take on additional salary. Taking on additional salary can have its benefits, particularly if we plan on operating over the cap in the following season(s).
Trading Lavine (expiring) for Player(s) (non-expiring salary) + assets is a route we could explore. Of course, the likelihood that a team is paying assets for a $49 million Lavine is infinitely small.
Yeah unless he as a huge year in 25/26 I'd guess to move him in the off season the Pacers would need to take back 75-80% of his salary $49 million. I'd try to get that $40 million broke up in 2 pieces and not more than 2 years. I doubt the picks coming back would be more than 2nds. Realistically I can't see much value in LaVine even if he has a big 25/26.
The vision I had is, if something good is available at the deadline in 26/27 take it. If not, let him expire and have Hali, a ton of young talent and a good cap situation to start 27 (which is when it can be assured Hali will be back to full form).
That might be the way to go if this happened, but if something good could be done in the off season and get something that would help the team I'd do that.
