Thoughts in General, Rumors, etc 4.0

[jbk1234]

22. Going back I'm sure there were few 4th year 22 year olds?

Age doesn't matter in the NBA. It's all about time in the league.

I'm old enough to remember your argument being thrown out by fans of Eddy Curry, Brandon Jenning, and tens of other high lottery picks that came in young. After 3 years and a ton of spoon fed minutes if a player is still a legit bad player it's unlikely they'll ever be more than a journeyman.

I don't agree. If someone is a senior in college age wise it is what it is. IMO

But, I know Bagley sucks and will suck. Ive hated on him for awhile. The entire argument is he's worth a mid 2nd or whatever, he still has a better shot than what his trade value is.

But at this time, with him being a distraction, might be time for him to go anyhow

I don't think it's unreasonable for the Kings to take this approach, but if Bagley doesn't do something this season, he's a prime candidate to play on the Q.O. and he wants out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[Diop]

I'd love to have Bagley at Charlotte, we pretty much have no backup centre, so there would be plenty of opportunity for him.
If he performed, he could earn the starting spot and we'd have Plumlee off the bench. I can't see a trade working, so we would need to see him cut which doesn't seem likely.

[zimpy27]

I actually think Bagley has potential still. He could be a starter level player

[K_chile22]

With how Sengun looks my one game overreaction is that I'm already regretting the Thies signing. Wonder if someone would be interested in December. Think he's on a fine contract but just not much room because Sengod has to play. He'd be good for Charlotte probably? Plumlee and a small something for him?

[Texas Chuck]

Dame is basically done and Bagley still has a ton of potential are certainly takes.

Edit: So this looks silly now, but someone made a very smart decision to delete a post and I respect that so I'll just leave this here with me looking silly.

[BoogieTime]

Dame is basically done and Bagley still has a ton of potential are certainly takes.

Edit: So this looks silly now, but someone made a very smart decision to delete a post and I respect that so I'll just leave this here with me looking silly.

lol. I’m going to have to answer this now, since it looks like your referring to me and I have to rebut the Dame is done part

Bagley doesn’t have a ton of potential, just more than his lowly trade value.

Dame isn’t done, but if I were Portland, I’d possibly look seriously at a good Simmons package if presented. Especially if they could get another good role player/picks with it. But then I respect Simmons talent and don’t know if Portland is still hanging around the periphery of the playoffs instead of a reboot here around younger players

That suggestion may seem to ring wrong to Chuck who I think supports players who remain with one club loyally

[Texas Chuck]

That suggestion may seem to ring wrong to Chuck who I think supports players who remain with one club loyally

Sure I like that in general.

But on this board where we discuss trade value, I'm partial to really good players. So I value Dame highly because he's really good at basketball. I don't value Bagley highly because he's relatively not very good at basketball. (by NBA standards obviously)

[chrbal]

There never has been an adequate trade on the table that outweighed his potential

He isnt good enough to make the rotation now, but still has the natural talent to be something in the future.

Why dump him for late 2nds and no names?

Last trade deadline there wasn't value for his potential upside

The value on the table for him has never met the moment

How many guys have their been who couldn't crack the rotation for a lottery team in their fourth season who went on to become even average NBA players?

I'm sure it's happened, but I doubt it's happened more than twice, in the history of the modern league.

I think congratulating yourself, with the benefit of hindsight, for holding onto an asset as its value just kept declining, because the market wouldn't pay what you were asking and the market is dumb is not a great takeaway from this experience. Maybe the Kings made a reasonable gamble at the time, but saying "I'm pleased about how our decisions worked out, it's the market that was dumb" is real Vlade-level delusion.

The guy clearly has no value to the Kings any more. Everyone now knows that. By far the most likely scenario is that you end up paying his (fairly impressive) salary for this season and then he goes somewhere else, either through buyout or free agency next year, and either does or doesn't blow up. If someone will take your $11m 12th man for free, you celebrate. If someone will give you seconds to take your $11m 12th man, that's winning the lotto right there. But he's not breaking out for you, and anyone who thinks he still might knows they can take a shot at him for free next year. He's not inspiring any bidding wars...

It’s probably happened more then we are guessing. But what’s more crazy is that he’s actually had some mild success and now in his 4th season the kings won’t be able to give him away.

But what’s more odd, it’s not like they just suddenly figured out he wasn’t a key piece, how do you not try to deal him off in the offseason? It’s not like they thought he’s a key piece and suddenly discovered he wasn’t

[babyjax13]

There never has been an adequate trade on the table that outweighed his potential

He isnt good enough to make the rotation now, but still has the natural talent to be something in the future.

Why dump him for late 2nds and no names?

Last trade deadline there wasn't value for his potential upside

The value on the table for him has never met the moment

How many guys have their been who couldn't crack the rotation for a lottery team in their fourth season who went on to become even average NBA players?

I'm sure it's happened, but I doubt it's happened more than twice, in the history of the modern league.

I think congratulating yourself, with the benefit of hindsight, for holding onto an asset as its value just kept declining, because the market wouldn't pay what you were asking and the market is dumb is not a great takeaway from this experience. Maybe the Kings made a reasonable gamble at the time, but saying "I'm pleased about how our decisions worked out, it's the market that was dumb" is real Vlade-level delusion.

The guy clearly has no value to the Kings any more. Everyone now knows that. By far the most likely scenario is that you end up paying his (fairly impressive) salary for this season and then he goes somewhere else, either through buyout or free agency next year, and either does or doesn't blow up. If someone will take your $11m 12th man for free, you celebrate. If someone will give you seconds to take your $11m 12th man, that's winning the lotto right there. But he's not breaking out for you, and anyone who thinks he still might knows they can take a shot at him for free next year. He's not inspiring any bidding wars...

But what’s more odd, it’s not like they just suddenly figured out he wasn’t a key piece, how do you not try to deal him off in the offseason? It’s not like they thought he’s a key piece and suddenly discovered he wasn’t

The answer might be that they couldn't move him without attaching assets (probably seconds?) and would rather just let him expire, and if in the crazy case he figures out how to play basketball, then they can offer him the QO.
It’s probably happened more then we are guessing. But what’s more crazy is that he’s actually had some mild success and now in his 4th season the kings won’t be able to give him away.

[kalenclayton]

How many guys have their been who couldn't crack the rotation for a lottery team in their fourth season who went on to become even average NBA players?

I'm sure it's happened, but I doubt it's happened more than twice, in the history of the modern league.

I think congratulating yourself, with the benefit of hindsight, for holding onto an asset as its value just kept declining, because the market wouldn't pay what you were asking and the market is dumb is not a great takeaway from this experience. Maybe the Kings made a reasonable gamble at the time, but saying "I'm pleased about how our decisions worked out, it's the market that was dumb" is real Vlade-level delusion.

The guy clearly has no value to the Kings any more. Everyone now knows that. By far the most likely scenario is that you end up paying his (fairly impressive) salary for this season and then he goes somewhere else, either through buyout or free agency next year, and either does or doesn't blow up. If someone will take your $11m 12th man for free, you celebrate. If someone will give you seconds to take your $11m 12th man, that's winning the lotto right there. But he's not breaking out for you, and anyone who thinks he still might knows they can take a shot at him for free next year. He's not inspiring any bidding wars...

But what’s more odd, it’s not like they just suddenly figured out he wasn’t a key piece, how do you not try to deal him off in the offseason? It’s not like they thought he’s a key piece and suddenly discovered he wasn’t

The answer might be that they couldn't move him without attaching assets (probably seconds?) and would rather just let him expire, and if in the crazy case he figures out how to play basketball, then they can offer him the QO.
It’s probably happened more then we are guessing. But what’s more crazy is that he’s actually had some mild success and now in his 4th season the kings won’t be able to give him away.

James Ham spells it out here. They tried to trade him and it didn’t happen. Who knows what deals were out there, but given the perception that this board has, it may not be hard to see that teams were asking the Kings to pay to trade Bagley. Who knows. At this point, Bagley will likely be traded in a package where he is used as a salary piece. That’s valuable in itself, so it makes sense why he hasn’t been moved.

Read on Twitter

[BlazersBroncos]

Dame is basically done and Bagley still has a ton of potential are certainly takes.

Edit: So this looks silly now, but someone made a very smart decision to delete a post and I respect that so I'll just leave this here with me looking silly.

lol. I’m going to have to answer this now, since it looks like your referring to me and I have to rebut the Dame is done part

Bagley doesn’t have a ton of potential, just more than his lowly trade value.

Dame isn’t done, but if I were Portland, I’d possibly look seriously at a good Simmons package if presented. Especially if they could get another good role player/picks with it. But then I respect Simmons talent and don’t know if Portland is still hanging around the periphery of the playoffs instead of a reboot here around younger players

That suggestion may seem to ring wrong to Chuck who I think supports players who remain with one club loyally

There is more to this game than talent. Moving a human being of Dame's caliber, who is marketable, accountable, tremendously popular in the city and community, and also better at basketball for a person like Ben Simmons would be a organizational blunder of tremendous proportions. Money loss, fan loss, perennial purgatory as a team, etc.

Dame being moved for Ben Simmons is about as likely as Bradley Beal being moved for Kyrie Irving.

[BoogieTime]

Dame is basically done and Bagley still has a ton of potential are certainly takes.

Edit: So this looks silly now, but someone made a very smart decision to delete a post and I respect that so I'll just leave this here with me looking silly.

lol. I’m going to have to answer this now, since it looks like your referring to me and I have to rebut the Dame is done part

Bagley doesn’t have a ton of potential, just more than his lowly trade value.

Dame isn’t done, but if I were Portland, I’d possibly look seriously at a good Simmons package if presented. Especially if they could get another good role player/picks with it. But then I respect Simmons talent and don’t know if Portland is still hanging around the periphery of the playoffs instead of a reboot here around younger players

That suggestion may seem to ring wrong to Chuck who I think supports players who remain with one club loyally

There is more to this game than talent. Moving a human being of Dame's caliber, who is marketable, accountable, tremendously popular in the city and community, and also better at basketball for a person like Ben Simmons would be a organizational blunder of tremendous proportions. Money loss, fan loss, perennial purgatory as a team, etc.

Dame being moved for Ben Simmons is about as likely as Bradley Beal being moved for Kyrie Irving.

"better at basketball", for how long?

Dame is 31, at the age where you just don't know if he's going to iron man it like some of the PGs in history that went to a higher age or tail off - which after watching the Olympics/and Game 1 (just Game 1, I know) the doubt may creep into mind. It's a roll of the dice at that age

Simmons has more years ahead of him

Are the Blazers looking at being a 6-10th seed again? Even Barkley last night had to say he would break the team up as constituted.

And even if the Blazers took a step back at building around younger talent and picked in the lottery for a couple years, how bad is it?

As for as the organizational side, are they doing Dame wrong for moving him to a team that looks to be a stronger contender with him on it? I guess it would really depend on if he really wanted to stay.

[Roy The Natural]

lol. I’m going to have to answer this now, since it looks like your referring to me and I have to rebut the Dame is done part

Bagley doesn’t have a ton of potential, just more than his lowly trade value.

Dame isn’t done, but if I were Portland, I’d possibly look seriously at a good Simmons package if presented. Especially if they could get another good role player/picks with it. But then I respect Simmons talent and don’t know if Portland is still hanging around the periphery of the playoffs instead of a reboot here around younger players

That suggestion may seem to ring wrong to Chuck who I think supports players who remain with one club loyally

There is more to this game than talent. Moving a human being of Dame's caliber, who is marketable, accountable, tremendously popular in the city and community, and also better at basketball for a person like Ben Simmons would be a organizational blunder of tremendous proportions. Money loss, fan loss, perennial purgatory as a team, etc.

Dame being moved for Ben Simmons is about as likely as Bradley Beal being moved for Kyrie Irving.

"better at basketball", for how long?

Dame is 31, at the age where you just don't know if he's going to iron man it like some of the PGs in history that went to a higher age or tail off - which after watching the Olympics/and Game 1 (just Game 1, I know) the doubt may creep into mind. It's a roll of the dice at that age

Simmons has more years ahead of him

Are the Blazers looking at being a 6-10th seed again? Even Barkley last night had to say he would break the team up as constituted.

And even if the Blazers took a step back at building around younger talent and picked in the lottery for a couple years, how bad is it?

As for as the organizational side, are they doing Dame wrong for moving him to a team that looks to be a stronger contender with him on it? I guess it would really depend on if he really wanted to stay.

Is Simmons even a rebuilding piece? Where exactly do you go with Ben as your best player? Most likely nowhere. Hell, Simmons can even screw you when your drafting by being so incredibly limited in his fit with most other star achetypes.

Ben isn't a guy you bring on to rebuild with. He's a guy that you bring in as a final piece or ideally your 3rd best.

[BlazersBroncos]

There is more to this game than talent. Moving a human being of Dame's caliber, who is marketable, accountable, tremendously popular in the city and community, and also better at basketball for a person like Ben Simmons would be a organizational blunder of tremendous proportions. Money loss, fan loss, perennial purgatory as a team, etc.

Dame being moved for Ben Simmons is about as likely as Bradley Beal being moved for Kyrie Irving.

"better at basketball", for how long?

Dame is 31, at the age where you just don't know if he's going to iron man it like some of the PGs in history that went to a higher age or tail off - which after watching the Olympics/and Game 1 (just Game 1, I know) the doubt may creep into mind. It's a roll of the dice at that age

Simmons has more years ahead of him

Are the Blazers looking at being a 6-10th seed again? Even Barkley last night had to say he would break the team up as constituted.

And even if the Blazers took a step back at building around younger talent and picked in the lottery for a couple years, how bad is it?

As for as the organizational side, are they doing Dame wrong for moving him to a team that looks to be a stronger contender with him on it? I guess it would really depend on if he really wanted to stay.

Is Simmons even a rebuilding piece? Where exactly do you go with Ben as your best player? Most likely nowhere. Hell, Simmons can even screw you when your drafting by being so incredibly limited in his fit with most other star achetypes.

Ben isn't a guy you bring on to rebuild with. He's a guy that you bring in as a final piece or ideally your 3rd best.

Simmons is absolutley a #3 and only worth bringing in if you have a #1 already. I do not think in any way he is a rebuilding piece. I dont think he would be happy on a small market rebuilding team. I dont think he would be good enough to be more than a treadmill leader, putting Portland in the same position we are in now but with a unmarketable doucher as the franchise face rather than a guy in Dame who is quite literally about as popular in Portland as Jesus is.

If we trade Dame, we aim for a package w/ a rookie scale talent, fillers and a 3/3 swap. Simmons isnt the target.

[chrbal]

How many guys have their been who couldn't crack the rotation for a lottery team in their fourth season who went on to become even average NBA players?

I'm sure it's happened, but I doubt it's happened more than twice, in the history of the modern league.

I think congratulating yourself, with the benefit of hindsight, for holding onto an asset as its value just kept declining, because the market wouldn't pay what you were asking and the market is dumb is not a great takeaway from this experience. Maybe the Kings made a reasonable gamble at the time, but saying "I'm pleased about how our decisions worked out, it's the market that was dumb" is real Vlade-level delusion.

The guy clearly has no value to the Kings any more. Everyone now knows that. By far the most likely scenario is that you end up paying his (fairly impressive) salary for this season and then he goes somewhere else, either through buyout or free agency next year, and either does or doesn't blow up. If someone will take your $11m 12th man for free, you celebrate. If someone will give you seconds to take your $11m 12th man, that's winning the lotto right there. But he's not breaking out for you, and anyone who thinks he still might knows they can take a shot at him for free next year. He's not inspiring any bidding wars...

But what’s more odd, it’s not like they just suddenly figured out he wasn’t a key piece, how do you not try to deal him off in the offseason? It’s not like they thought he’s a key piece and suddenly discovered he wasn’t

The answer might be that they couldn't move him without attaching assets (probably seconds?) and would rather just let him expire, and if in the crazy case he figures out how to play basketball, then they can offer him the QO.
It’s probably happened more then we are guessing. But what’s more crazy is that he’s actually had some mild success and now in his 4th season the kings won’t be able to give him away.

Yeah. It’s just crazy that’s he’s a young big with some solid modern 4/5 skills who has too much else going on, and the kings would rather him gain no value and sit vs moving on from him.

He honestly could wind up getting bought out after the deadline, I doubt it though, which is crazy. The kings literally can’t give him away.

[zimpy27]

"better at basketball", for how long?

Dame is 31, at the age where you just don't know if he's going to iron man it like some of the PGs in history that went to a higher age or tail off - which after watching the Olympics/and Game 1 (just Game 1, I know) the doubt may creep into mind. It's a roll of the dice at that age

Simmons has more years ahead of him

Are the Blazers looking at being a 6-10th seed again? Even Barkley last night had to say he would break the team up as constituted.

And even if the Blazers took a step back at building around younger talent and picked in the lottery for a couple years, how bad is it?

As for as the organizational side, are they doing Dame wrong for moving him to a team that looks to be a stronger contender with him on it? I guess it would really depend on if he really wanted to stay.

Is Simmons even a rebuilding piece? Where exactly do you go with Ben as your best player? Most likely nowhere. Hell, Simmons can even screw you when your drafting by being so incredibly limited in his fit with most other star achetypes.

Ben isn't a guy you bring on to rebuild with. He's a guy that you bring in as a final piece or ideally your 3rd best.

Simmons is absolutley a #3 and only worth bringing in if you have a #1 already. I do not think in any way he is a rebuilding piece. I dont think he would be happy on a small market rebuilding team. I dont think he would be good enough to be more than a treadmill leader, putting Portland in the same position we are in now but with a unmarketable doucher as the franchise face rather than a guy in Dame who is quite literally about as popular in Portland as Jesus is.

If we trade Dame, we aim for a package w/ a rookie scale talent, fillers and a 3/3 swap. Simmons isnt the target.

I think Simmons is a #1 or #2 guy in that he could be the guy you build around for a championship but you'd have to get the right guys around him.

[Roy The Natural]

Is Simmons even a rebuilding piece? Where exactly do you go with Ben as your best player? Most likely nowhere. Hell, Simmons can even screw you when your drafting by being so incredibly limited in his fit with most other star achetypes.

Ben isn't a guy you bring on to rebuild with. He's a guy that you bring in as a final piece or ideally your 3rd best.

Simmons is absolutley a #3 and only worth bringing in if you have a #1 already. I do not think in any way he is a rebuilding piece. I dont think he would be happy on a small market rebuilding team. I dont think he would be good enough to be more than a treadmill leader, putting Portland in the same position we are in now but with a unmarketable doucher as the franchise face rather than a guy in Dame who is quite literally about as popular in Portland as Jesus is.

If we trade Dame, we aim for a package w/ a rookie scale talent, fillers and a 3/3 swap. Simmons isnt the target.

I think Simmons is a #1 or #2 guy in that he could be the guy you build around for a championship but you'd have to get the right guys around him.

I really don't think there's a coherent argument that could be provided for him being a #1... Maybe a #2 with a highly reliable #1 offensively.

[zimpy27]

Simmons is absolutley a #3 and only worth bringing in if you have a #1 already. I do not think in any way he is a rebuilding piece. I dont think he would be happy on a small market rebuilding team. I dont think he would be good enough to be more than a treadmill leader, putting Portland in the same position we are in now but with a unmarketable doucher as the franchise face rather than a guy in Dame who is quite literally about as popular in Portland as Jesus is.

If we trade Dame, we aim for a package w/ a rookie scale talent, fillers and a 3/3 swap. Simmons isnt the target.

I think Simmons is a #1 or #2 guy in that he could be the guy you build around for a championship but you'd have to get the right guys around him.

I really don't think there's a coherent argument that could be provided for him being a #1... Maybe a #2 with a highly reliable #1 offensively.

I think it could be done but it's not likely at all.

Being a #2 to reliable #1 on offense is far more likely but that number 1 would have to be a guard or SF.

[MartinToVaught]

Simmons is too useless on offense to even be a #3, IMO.

[BullyKing]

Simmons is too useless on offense to even be a #3, IMO.

I have two teams (Bucks and Nets) and potentially a third (Warriors depending on what Klay looks like though even Draymond is close) with three players on their team better than Simmons. Am I missing anyone?