zimpy27 wrote:nolang1 wrote:zimpy27 wrote:
What makes you think I didn't read your post? I'm re-iterating that these teams would be better, in a meaningful way in the context of your post. I disagree that Kings would not make playoffs. They would with Simmons. But these are also growing teams, it may not happen in year 1 but long term they are better as presently constructed.
So which two of the Jazz, Suns, Lakers, Nuggets, Warriors, Mavericks, Blazers, Clippers, and Grizzlies would the Kings with Simmons be better than? Keep in mind that in the scenario you listed they'd be trading their best player to get Simmons rather than just picking him up off the waiver wire. Anyway, you're already agreeing with my premise that the only teams where Simmons makes remotely any sense in a 2-team deal are mediocre ones who think he would incrementally increase their chances of sneaking into the playoffs but not making much noise when there (the foundation of countless winning trades, I'm sure).
I would certainly differ on the Celtics (Brown makes significantly less money, is younger, has a much better trajectory of improvement, and was on the same tier as Simmons this past season but just received fewer accolades due to Embiid dragging Philadelphia to the 1 seed) and it should be pretty obvious that teams like San Antonio and Sacramento would be weary of giving up much of value for someone who by any account seems disinterested in playing there long-term, but disregarding that it's funny to see how Simmons breaks the typical RealGM logic as to the type of trades teams in that kind of situation should make.
Normally there's not a young 'star' on the block, so the most typical avenue for improvement a fringe playoff team (or a fringe contender that maybe wants a slightly better chance of advancing another round) has to improve itself in the short term is to give up draft capital for a veteran. I distinctly remember in 2017-18 proposing trades centered around the idea of Philadelphia's first-round pick for Lou Williams (in peak 6MOY form and a guy who could run some half-court offense if maybe there was nobody else on the team who could do that) and in general it was seen as silly because why give up future assets when Philadelphia is a team of the future (they used that pick on Landry Shamet and the following year traded him, two other 1sts, and two other 2nds for Tobias Harris). So I'm just not sure where the calculus comes in where trading a late 1st for a positive player on a mid-level type of contract is not good, but trading more than that for a max contract player who's not a whole lot better is.
Kings with Simmons will be better than two of those teams. I'd have them above Warrior, Grizzlies and Clippers as being most likely. But obviously it can vary based on health.
I think Simmons is quite a bit better than Brown and fits a need better on the Celtics.
Yeah I agree, very unusual for a young guy like SImmons to be on the block like this and it makes it tough to value him. Teams aren't really et up to receive players like him. I definitely think that limits his value on the market.
Lol that is certainly a take where the Kings trading Fox for Simmons will make up the equivalent of 9 games in an 82 game season on the Warriors, who get Klay back and have two rookie lottery picks plus Wiseman if they want to improve themselves in the short term.
