Game 3 Thread - Kings (1-1) vs Warriors (2-0)

[kb02]

Mitchell
Hali
Harkless
Simmons
Holmes

6th: Buddy

I like this version of the Kings team than any Fox-lead teams, imo.

To me, Fox is kind of the odd man out. Don't get me wrong, Fox is nice but does he makes sense for this team? Not sure.

See my post (just now) on the kings trade thread. I'd punt Buddy as well. I would add Fox's salary in addition to the question of whether he makes this team better.

Who is scoring the ball for us on that team? Even if you keep Buddy, there's not one player you can give the ball to and ask to go get a bucket. Fox might not be an elite automatic bucket getter but he's miles ahead of anyone in that lineup at it, he just needs another shot creator next to him on the wing in my opinion.

I do think Simmons has become underrated but I think one thing a lot of Kings fans in particular seem to gloss over with Simmons is that he has Embiid next to him as an elite first scoring option. Simmons is the third, probably even fourth, scoring option on that team. I just do not think he would work as well as a lot of people anticipate in Sac without completely reshaping the entire roster. A straight up Fox for Simmons swap just doesn't make sense to me.

Davis fills in for Buddy. They're redundant right now. Both are gunners, who will shoot you in or out of games.

Hali has been deferring his offense. He steps up his offense in Fox's absence. And I think Mitchell can produce 15 pts, 10 assists, 5 boards with elite defense as a starter. That fills the offensive gap. Then you get two all nba level defenders in Simmons and Dort plus Mitchell. That team makes the playoffs and goes on a run, because defense shows up. This current Kings team, they're not making the playoffs. It's unbalanced and small. This team needs playable size desperately. Playable, because all of their bigs are bench players (including Holmes). Simmons solves a big piece of that and can play the 5 during crunch time.

[BoogieTime]

Id send him to Philly yesterday. I'm sick of him. Terrible since preseason. Cost the team the game with dumb turnovers two out of three games

Seems like kind of an extreme reaction.


Edit: To be clear, I've always waffled on Fox for Simmons, and I don't think being in favor of it is indefensible. I just don't think we need to be overreacting to what has been a rough start. It's 3 games in. We know this play is not who Fox is.

Ive been about that trade since the draft, all summer

I think waiting any longer might push the trade out of bounds for Philly

I think Mitchell/Hali are ready

[pillwenney]

Id send him to Philly yesterday. I'm sick of him. Terrible since preseason. Cost the team the game with dumb turnovers two out of three games

Seems like kind of an extreme reaction.


Edit: To be clear, I've always waffled on Fox for Simmons, and I don't think being in favor of it is indefensible. I just don't think we need to be overreacting to what has been a rough start. It's 3 games in. We know this play is not who Fox is.

Ive been about that trade since the draft, all summer

I think waiting any longer might push the trade out of bounds for Philly

I think Mitchell/Hali are ready

I wouldn't worry about that so much. Fox is better than this, and he'll play better than this. It's been three games. He'll be fine.

[codydaze]

See my post (just now) on the kings trade thread. I'd punt Buddy as well. I would add Fox's salary in addition to the question of whether he makes this team better.

Who is scoring the ball for us on that team? Even if you keep Buddy, there's not one player you can give the ball to and ask to go get a bucket. Fox might not be an elite automatic bucket getter but he's miles ahead of anyone in that lineup at it, he just needs another shot creator next to him on the wing in my opinion.

I do think Simmons has become underrated but I think one thing a lot of Kings fans in particular seem to gloss over with Simmons is that he has Embiid next to him as an elite first scoring option. Simmons is the third, probably even fourth, scoring option on that team. I just do not think he would work as well as a lot of people anticipate in Sac without completely reshaping the entire roster. A straight up Fox for Simmons swap just doesn't make sense to me.

Davis fills in for Buddy. They're redundant right now. Both are gunners, who will shoot you in or out of games.

Hali has been deferring his offense. He steps up his offense in Fox's absence. And I think Mitchell can produce 15 pts, 10 assists, 5 boards with elite defense as a starter. That fills the offensive gap. Then you get two all nba level defenders in Simmons and Dort plus Mitchell. That team makes the playoffs and goes on a run, because defense shows up. This current Kings team, they're not making the playoffs. It's unbalanced and small. This team needs playable size desperately. Playable, because all of their bigs are bench players (including Holmes). Simmons solves a big piece of that and can play the 5 during crunch time.

I just fundamentally disagree that team would be any better than it is now. I've grown to like a Mitchell a lot but I don't think he would get to the level you are saying as a starter, he wasn't even a scorer in college and at 23 how much are you expecting his game to continue to grow? Haliburton is not a natural scorer either, he's a great secondary ball handler and playmaker. I just don't think you can expect to disperse the points Fox scores across multiple guys and have it work out. The defense would be better, sure, but it would be one of the worst scoring teams in the league.

[kb02]

Who is scoring the ball for us on that team? Even if you keep Buddy, there's not one player you can give the ball to and ask to go get a bucket. Fox might not be an elite automatic bucket getter but he's miles ahead of anyone in that lineup at it, he just needs another shot creator next to him on the wing in my opinion.

I do think Simmons has become underrated but I think one thing a lot of Kings fans in particular seem to gloss over with Simmons is that he has Embiid next to him as an elite first scoring option. Simmons is the third, probably even fourth, scoring option on that team. I just do not think he would work as well as a lot of people anticipate in Sac without completely reshaping the entire roster. A straight up Fox for Simmons swap just doesn't make sense to me.

Davis fills in for Buddy. They're redundant right now. Both are gunners, who will shoot you in or out of games.

Hali has been deferring his offense. He steps up his offense in Fox's absence. And I think Mitchell can produce 15 pts, 10 assists, 5 boards with elite defense as a starter. That fills the offensive gap. Then you get two all nba level defenders in Simmons and Dort plus Mitchell. That team makes the playoffs and goes on a run, because defense shows up. This current Kings team, they're not making the playoffs. It's unbalanced and small. This team needs playable size desperately. Playable, because all of their bigs are bench players (including Holmes). Simmons solves a big piece of that and can play the 5 during crunch time.

I just fundamentally disagree that team would be any better than it is now. I've grown to like a Mitchell a lot but I don't think he would get to the level you are saying as a starter, he wasn't even a scorer in college and at 23 how much are you expecting his game to continue to grow? Haliburton is not a natural scorer either, he's a great secondary ball handler and playmaker. I just don't think you can expect to disperse the points Fox scores across multiple guys and have it work out. The defense would be better, sure, but it would be one of the worst scoring teams in the league.

Fox's numbers were inflated last year, because of the pace of play. As to how you see things and how I see things, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

However, one thing you're wrong on is this: at 23 how much are you expecting his game to continue to grow

Plenty of players have jumped levels after the age of 23: Steph, Nash, Jimmy Butler, Doug Christie...You bet on the work ethic and the fact that he's already flashing in his first year. I don't think he's anywhere close to his ceiling.

[codydaze]

Davis fills in for Buddy. They're redundant right now. Both are gunners, who will shoot you in or out of games.

Hali has been deferring his offense. He steps up his offense in Fox's absence. And I think Mitchell can produce 15 pts, 10 assists, 5 boards with elite defense as a starter. That fills the offensive gap. Then you get two all nba level defenders in Simmons and Dort plus Mitchell. That team makes the playoffs and goes on a run, because defense shows up. This current Kings team, they're not making the playoffs. It's unbalanced and small. This team needs playable size desperately. Playable, because all of their bigs are bench players (including Holmes). Simmons solves a big piece of that and can play the 5 during crunch time.

I just fundamentally disagree that team would be any better than it is now. I've grown to like a Mitchell a lot but I don't think he would get to the level you are saying as a starter, he wasn't even a scorer in college and at 23 how much are you expecting his game to continue to grow? Haliburton is not a natural scorer either, he's a great secondary ball handler and playmaker. I just don't think you can expect to disperse the points Fox scores across multiple guys and have it work out. The defense would be better, sure, but it would be one of the worst scoring teams in the league.

Fox's numbers were inflated last year, because of the pace of play. As to how you see things and how I see things, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

However, one thing you're wrong on is this: at 23 how much are you expecting his game to continue to grow

Plenty of players have jumped levels after the age of 23: Steph, Nash, Jimmy Butler, Doug Christie...You bet on the work ethic and the fact that he's already flashing in his first year. I don't think he's anywhere close to his ceiling.

The team's pace last season compared to the year before was marginally higher, pace was not the reason his numbers increased. His game clearly took a leap and he took control of the team at a higher level, he was fourth in the league in fourth quarter scoring right between James Harden and Bradley Beal. I expect to see more of that Fox over the remaining 79 games than the two off games he had over the opening 3 games.

And those guys are outliers, not the norm. Even so, Fox is also only 23 years old so that logic should be applied to him as well. His PPG total has increased by at least 4 every season and he clearly put a lot of work into his body this summer. Fox will be okay.

[LightTheBeam]

Fox has been bad, but lets not act like all the blame falls on him. This roster is still a 30-36 win roster regardless.

Mo Harkless has no business starting for any decent NBA franchise. Haliburton has failed to establish anything this season, was really hoping for a next step from him hes just extremely passive. Buddy still hot 1 game, cold the next, doesn't know how to dribble, or even execute a simple pass. Fox getting frustrated and just drives because nothing is available and turns the ball over.

We are going through exactly the same as last year. This franchise could have (insert star not named KD/Giannis/Lebron/Curry) and would still fail. Walton is an absolute joke and he sits around picking his teeth unwilling to challenge Holmes fouling out on an over the back foul. Unwilling to adjust anything in real time. Ownership wayyyy to cheap to fire him, its another lost season.

Offense rolls, then when opposing team punches us in the mouth, Walton does nothing. Ball/player movement stops, and nobody but Fox truly able to go 1 on 1. I don't think Simmons solves any of the issues we have seen from this team this year, only makes them worse.

We don't have a true #1 option and some of you think trading Fox for a guy whose scared of Trae Young fixes that? Teams without a true #1 scorer need amazing coaching/ball movement to be successful, we don't have that.

I feel many of you will get your wish, and Fox will soon be a Sixer. We will then watch him reach Young/Morant levels with Embid as the Sixers get to the ECF and Fox becomes an established superstar. Meanwhile here in Sac we will keep saying "if only" not realizing the problem starts from ownership down.

[codydaze]

Fox has been bad, but lets not act like all the blame falls on him. This roster is still a 30-36 win roster regardless.

Mo Harkless has no business starting for any decent NBA franchise. Haliburton has failed to establish anything this season, was really hoping for a next step from him hes just extremely passive. Buddy still hot 1 game, cold the next, doesn't know how to dribble, or even execute a simple pass. Fox getting frustrated and just drives because nothing is available and turns the ball over.

We are going through exactly the same as last year. This franchise could have (insert star not named KD/Giannis/Lebron/Curry) and would still fail. Walton is an absolute joke and he sits around picking his teeth unwilling to challenge Holmes fouling out on an over the back foul. Unwilling to adjust anything in real time. Ownership wayyyy to cheap to fire him, its another lost season.

Offense rolls, then when opposing team punches us in the mouth, Walton does nothing. Ball/player movement stops, and nobody but Fox truly able to go 1 on 1. I don't think Simmons solves any of the issues we have seen from this team this year, only makes them worse.

We don't have a true #1 option and some of you think trading Fox for a guy whose scared of Trae Young fixes that? Teams without a true #1 scorer need amazing coaching/ball movement to be successful, we don't have that.

I feel many of you will get your wish, and Fox will soon be a Sixer. We will then watch him reach Young/Morant levels with Embid as the Sixers get to the ECF and Fox becomes an established superstar. Meanwhile here in Sac we will keep saying "if only" not realizing the problem starts from ownership down.

We agree on Fox but I disagree that this roster is a 30-36 win one. I could see this team getting anywhere from 40-45 wins, I just think the big thing holding us back right now is coaching. We could have easily been 3-0 to start this season but we have these last game collapses that I think fall on Walton not adjusting and having a good enough offense installed to keep the ball moving and create good shots. I don't mind Harkless as a situation starter depending on the matchup, he just shouldn't be playing north of 20 minutes a night. There's some things I don't love about how the roster is constructed, I think it's more suited for regular season success than capable of being a team that can make a playoff run but that's not the problem we need to be worried about right now, but I do think it's good enough to get into the playoffs.

[LightTheBeam]

Fox has been bad, but lets not act like all the blame falls on him. This roster is still a 30-36 win roster regardless.

Mo Harkless has no business starting for any decent NBA franchise. Haliburton has failed to establish anything this season, was really hoping for a next step from him hes just extremely passive. Buddy still hot 1 game, cold the next, doesn't know how to dribble, or even execute a simple pass. Fox getting frustrated and just drives because nothing is available and turns the ball over.

We are going through exactly the same as last year. This franchise could have (insert star not named KD/Giannis/Lebron/Curry) and would still fail. Walton is an absolute joke and he sits around picking his teeth unwilling to challenge Holmes fouling out on an over the back foul. Unwilling to adjust anything in real time. Ownership wayyyy to cheap to fire him, its another lost season.

Offense rolls, then when opposing team punches us in the mouth, Walton does nothing. Ball/player movement stops, and nobody but Fox truly able to go 1 on 1. I don't think Simmons solves any of the issues we have seen from this team this year, only makes them worse.

We don't have a true #1 option and some of you think trading Fox for a guy whose scared of Trae Young fixes that? Teams without a true #1 scorer need amazing coaching/ball movement to be successful, we don't have that.

I feel many of you will get your wish, and Fox will soon be a Sixer. We will then watch him reach Young/Morant levels with Embid as the Sixers get to the ECF and Fox becomes an established superstar. Meanwhile here in Sac we will keep saying "if only" not realizing the problem starts from ownership down.

We agree on Fox but I disagree that this roster is a 30-36 win one. I could see this team getting anywhere from 40-45 wins, I just think the big thing holding us back right now is coaching. We could have easily been 3-0 to start this season but we have these last game collapses that I think fall on Walton not adjusting and having a good enough offense installed to keep the ball moving and create good shots. I don't mind Harkless as a situation starter depending on the matchup, he just shouldn't be playing north of 20 minutes a night. There's some things I don't love about how the roster is constructed, I think it's more suited for regular season success than capable of being a team that can make a playoff run but that's not the problem we need to be worried about right now, but I do think it's good enough to get into the playoffs.

Well that's kind of what I'm leading to. The roster is probably good enough to best case get 40-45 (I think I worded it wrong including Walton as part of the "roster"). But the roster certainly has holes and when you have an awful coach like Walton, hes not going to get the most out of it. With an elite coach we could certainly see 40-45 (probably best case), but this roster under Walton is 30-36 at best.

We will win some games against the better teams, but we will certainly cough a few up to the Pelicans, Pistons, Cavs, when the entire team comes out flat. We will have some random 5-8 game losing streaks, and then some random 5 game winning streaks. Its the story of the Kings.

[kb02]

Fox has been bad, but lets not act like all the blame falls on him. This roster is still a 30-36 win roster regardless.

Mo Harkless has no business starting for any decent NBA franchise. Haliburton has failed to establish anything this season, was really hoping for a next step from him hes just extremely passive. Buddy still hot 1 game, cold the next, doesn't know how to dribble, or even execute a simple pass. Fox getting frustrated and just drives because nothing is available and turns the ball over.

We are going through exactly the same as last year. This franchise could have (insert star not named KD/Giannis/Lebron/Curry) and would still fail. Walton is an absolute joke and he sits around picking his teeth unwilling to challenge Holmes fouling out on an over the back foul. Unwilling to adjust anything in real time. Ownership wayyyy to cheap to fire him, its another lost season.

Offense rolls, then when opposing team punches us in the mouth, Walton does nothing. Ball/player movement stops, and nobody but Fox truly able to go 1 on 1. I don't think Simmons solves any of the issues we have seen from this team this year, only makes them worse.

We don't have a true #1 option and some of you think trading Fox for a guy whose scared of Trae Young fixes that? Teams without a true #1 scorer need amazing coaching/ball movement to be successful, we don't have that.

I feel many of you will get your wish, and Fox will soon be a Sixer. We will then watch him reach Young/Morant levels with Embid as the Sixers get to the ECF and Fox becomes an established superstar. Meanwhile here in Sac we will keep saying "if only" not realizing the problem starts from ownership down.

We agree on Fox but I disagree that this roster is a 30-36 win one. I could see this team getting anywhere from 40-45 wins, I just think the big thing holding us back right now is coaching. We could have easily been 3-0 to start this season but we have these last game collapses that I think fall on Walton not adjusting and having a good enough offense installed to keep the ball moving and create good shots. I don't mind Harkless as a situation starter depending on the matchup, he just shouldn't be playing north of 20 minutes a night. There's some things I don't love about how the roster is constructed, I think it's more suited for regular season success than capable of being a team that can make a playoff run but that's not the problem we need to be worried about right now, but I do think it's good enough to get into the playoffs.

Well that's kind of what I'm leading to. The roster is probably good enough to best case get 40-45 (I think I worded it wrong including Walton as part of the "roster"). But the roster certainly has holes and when you have an awful coach like Walton, hes not going to get the most out of it. With an elite coach we could certainly see 40-45 (probably best case), but this roster under Walton is 30-36 at best.

We will win some games against the better teams, but we will certainly cough a few up to the Pelicans, Pistons, Cavs, when the entire team comes out flat. We will have some random 5-8 game losing streaks, and then some random 5 game winning streaks. Its the story of the Kings.

This team, as constructed, is not going to make the playoffs. The Kings have two bench players in the rotation (Holmes and Harkless), a size deficiency--the best players: Fox, Hali, Mitchell, Barnes, and Buddy, and lacks offensive efficiency. The Kings most consistent offensive threat is Barnes. That's an issue, because he's a third, maybe second option at best on most teams.

[LightTheBeam]

We agree on Fox but I disagree that this roster is a 30-36 win one. I could see this team getting anywhere from 40-45 wins, I just think the big thing holding us back right now is coaching. We could have easily been 3-0 to start this season but we have these last game collapses that I think fall on Walton not adjusting and having a good enough offense installed to keep the ball moving and create good shots. I don't mind Harkless as a situation starter depending on the matchup, he just shouldn't be playing north of 20 minutes a night. There's some things I don't love about how the roster is constructed, I think it's more suited for regular season success than capable of being a team that can make a playoff run but that's not the problem we need to be worried about right now, but I do think it's good enough to get into the playoffs.

Well that's kind of what I'm leading to. The roster is probably good enough to best case get 40-45 (I think I worded it wrong including Walton as part of the "roster"). But the roster certainly has holes and when you have an awful coach like Walton, hes not going to get the most out of it. With an elite coach we could certainly see 40-45 (probably best case), but this roster under Walton is 30-36 at best.

We will win some games against the better teams, but we will certainly cough a few up to the Pelicans, Pistons, Cavs, when the entire team comes out flat. We will have some random 5-8 game losing streaks, and then some random 5 game winning streaks. Its the story of the Kings.

This team, as constructed, is not going to make the playoffs. The Kings have two bench players in the rotation (Holmes and Harkless), a size deficiency--the best players: Fox, Hali, Mitchell, Barnes, and Buddy, and lacks offensive efficiency. The Kings most consistent offensive threat is Barnes. That's an issue, because he's a third, maybe second option at best on most teams.

I disagree with Holmes being a bench player. He would start or is better than the starter for the following teams -

Knicks
Hornets
Bucks
Wizards
Nets
Celtics
Raptors
Magic
Pistons
Warriors
Mavericks
Lakers
Clippers
Spurs
Rockets
Thunder

More than half the league hes a starter (the only arguable one here is the Bucks)

Hes probably not a top 7 or maybe even a top 10 center, but hes absolutely top 15. If you watch the games and think Holmes is the problem I'm afraid we are watching different games here.

The team really is a good forward and a real coach away from being a playoff team.

[kb02]

Well that's kind of what I'm leading to. The roster is probably good enough to best case get 40-45 (I think I worded it wrong including Walton as part of the "roster"). But the roster certainly has holes and when you have an awful coach like Walton, hes not going to get the most out of it. With an elite coach we could certainly see 40-45 (probably best case), but this roster under Walton is 30-36 at best.

We will win some games against the better teams, but we will certainly cough a few up to the Pelicans, Pistons, Cavs, when the entire team comes out flat. We will have some random 5-8 game losing streaks, and then some random 5 game winning streaks. Its the story of the Kings.

This team, as constructed, is not going to make the playoffs. The Kings have two bench players in the rotation (Holmes and Harkless), a size deficiency--the best players: Fox, Hali, Mitchell, Barnes, and Buddy, and lacks offensive efficiency. The Kings most consistent offensive threat is Barnes. That's an issue, because he's a third, maybe second option at best on most teams.

I disagree with Holmes being a bench player. He would start or is better than the starter for the following teams -

Knicks
Hornets
Bucks
Wizards
Nets
Celtics
Raptors
Magic
Pistons
Warriors
Mavericks
Lakers
Clippers
Spurs
Rockets
Thunder

More than half the league hes a starter (the only arguable one here is the Bucks)

Hes probably not a top 7 or maybe even a top 10 center, but hes absolutely top 15. If you watch the games and think Holmes is the problem I'm afraid we are watching different games here.

The team really is a good forward and a real coach away from being a playoff team.

I'm not gonna go through each one of those teams. It's an indication of the lack of quality bigs in the game today. Holmes is and should be a bench big. He's limited. Provides no shot blocking presence, rarely passes the ball (beyond hand offs), and doesn't have range outside of the paint. The Kings biggest issue right now is size on the wings and an elite big.

[LightTheBeam]

This team, as constructed, is not going to make the playoffs. The Kings have two bench players in the rotation (Holmes and Harkless), a size deficiency--the best players: Fox, Hali, Mitchell, Barnes, and Buddy, and lacks offensive efficiency. The Kings most consistent offensive threat is Barnes. That's an issue, because he's a third, maybe second option at best on most teams.

I disagree with Holmes being a bench player. He would start or is better than the starter for the following teams -

Knicks
Hornets
Bucks
Wizards
Nets
Celtics
Raptors
Magic
Pistons
Warriors
Mavericks
Lakers
Clippers
Spurs
Rockets
Thunder

More than half the league hes a starter (the only arguable one here is the Bucks)

Hes probably not a top 7 or maybe even a top 10 center, but hes absolutely top 15. If you watch the games and think Holmes is the problem I'm afraid we are watching different games here.

The team really is a good forward and a real coach away from being a playoff team.

I'm not gonna go through each one of those teams. It's an indication of the lack of quality bigs in the game today. Holmes is and should be a bench big. He's limited. Provides no shot blocking presence, rarely passes the ball (beyond hand offs), and doesn't have range outside of the paint. The Kings biggest issue right now is size on the wings and an elite big.

That excuse is irrelevant. The lack of quality bigs speaks to the fact that Holmes is and should be a starter in todays NBA. There isn't some imaginary stash of bigs we can just upgrade to. So basically because we don't have a top 10 center we are lacking at the position. Holmes is perfectly fine, we have a much larger issue at the wing spot and truly our guards have a ton of potential, but that hasn't really translated to on the court production.

I'm not going to change your mind, so I don't think continuing here makes much sense. All I can say is we are clearly watching different games if you think Holmes is the problem. Id argue hes been our 2nd best player this year behind Barnes. 14/11/2.5 blocks shooting 76% from the floor. His only issue is he needs to work on not getting so many stupid fouls.

[kb02]

I disagree with Holmes being a bench player. He would start or is better than the starter for the following teams -

Knicks
Hornets
Bucks
Wizards
Nets
Celtics
Raptors
Magic
Pistons
Warriors
Mavericks
Lakers
Clippers
Spurs
Rockets
Thunder

More than half the league hes a starter (the only arguable one here is the Bucks)

Hes probably not a top 7 or maybe even a top 10 center, but hes absolutely top 15. If you watch the games and think Holmes is the problem I'm afraid we are watching different games here.

The team really is a good forward and a real coach away from being a playoff team.

I'm not gonna go through each one of those teams. It's an indication of the lack of quality bigs in the game today. Holmes is and should be a bench big. He's limited. Provides no shot blocking presence, rarely passes the ball (beyond hand offs), and doesn't have range outside of the paint. The Kings biggest issue right now is size on the wings and an elite big.

That excuse is irrelevant. The lack of quality bigs speaks to the fact that Holmes is and should be a starter in todays NBA. There isn't some imaginary stash of bigs we can just upgrade to. So basically because we don't have a top 10 center we are lacking at the position. Holmes is perfectly fine, we have a much larger issue at the wing spot and truly our guards have a ton of potential, but that hasn't really translated to on the court production.

I'm not going to change your mind, so I don't think continuing here makes much sense. All I can say is we are clearly watching different games if you think Holmes is the problem. Id argue hes been our 2nd best player this year behind Barnes. 14/11/2.5 blocks shooting 76% from the floor. His only issue is he needs to work on not getting so many stupid fouls.

Bagley could put up 16/8/1 assist if he got playing time, so those numbers don't mean anything. The Kings are in desperate need for elite play from their bigs. I like Holmes, but he's in the role wrong role. It was why I was against signing him for the rumored $20m+. I'm okay with the contract that he was given. Thought it was fair.

[LightTheBeam]

I'm not gonna go through each one of those teams. It's an indication of the lack of quality bigs in the game today. Holmes is and should be a bench big. He's limited. Provides no shot blocking presence, rarely passes the ball (beyond hand offs), and doesn't have range outside of the paint. The Kings biggest issue right now is size on the wings and an elite big.

That excuse is irrelevant. The lack of quality bigs speaks to the fact that Holmes is and should be a starter in todays NBA. There isn't some imaginary stash of bigs we can just upgrade to. So basically because we don't have a top 10 center we are lacking at the position. Holmes is perfectly fine, we have a much larger issue at the wing spot and truly our guards have a ton of potential, but that hasn't really translated to on the court production.

I'm not going to change your mind, so I don't think continuing here makes much sense. All I can say is we are clearly watching different games if you think Holmes is the problem. Id argue hes been our 2nd best player this year behind Barnes. 14/11/2.5 blocks shooting 76% from the floor. His only issue is he needs to work on not getting so many stupid fouls.

Bagley could put up 16/8/1 assist if he got playing time, so those numbers don't mean anything. The Kings are in desperate need for elite play from their bigs. I like Holmes, but he's in the role wrong role. It was why I was against signing him for the rumored $20m+. I'm okay with the contract that he was given. Thought it was fair.

The difference is Bagley would be inefficient, awful on defense, and still make boneheaded decisions. Holmes plays his role as efficient as possible. I don't think that comparison is relevant. Holmes value isn't only based on the box score.

[kb02]

That excuse is irrelevant. The lack of quality bigs speaks to the fact that Holmes is and should be a starter in todays NBA. There isn't some imaginary stash of bigs we can just upgrade to. So basically because we don't have a top 10 center we are lacking at the position. Holmes is perfectly fine, we have a much larger issue at the wing spot and truly our guards have a ton of potential, but that hasn't really translated to on the court production.

I'm not going to change your mind, so I don't think continuing here makes much sense. All I can say is we are clearly watching different games if you think Holmes is the problem. Id argue hes been our 2nd best player this year behind Barnes. 14/11/2.5 blocks shooting 76% from the floor. His only issue is he needs to work on not getting so many stupid fouls.

Bagley could put up 16/8/1 assist if he got playing time, so those numbers don't mean anything. The Kings are in desperate need for elite play from their bigs. I like Holmes, but he's in the role wrong role. It was why I was against signing him for the rumored $20m+. I'm okay with the contract that he was given. Thought it was fair.

The difference is Bagley would be inefficient, awful on defense, and still make boneheaded decisions. Holmes plays his role as efficient as possible. I don't think that comparison is relevant. Holmes value isn't only based on the box score.

So you cite stats for Holmes, acknowledge that Bagley could get similar numbers, but then say Bags' numbers are irrelevant. You can't have it both ways. Holmes is the better player, but he's a bench big just like Bagley.

And, no, Holmes doesn't have the hockey assist impact like Haliburton or Draymond. He rolls, dunks, and hustles but he doesn't make others better on offense. And he doesn't have the shot altering presence like Gobert on defense. Holmes can rotate, but there's a reason why the Kings went out and got Len and Thompson. It was a layup line last year. His value beyond the box score is limited despite what you say.

[LightTheBeam]

Bagley could put up 16/8/1 assist if he got playing time, so those numbers don't mean anything. The Kings are in desperate need for elite play from their bigs. I like Holmes, but he's in the role wrong role. It was why I was against signing him for the rumored $20m+. I'm okay with the contract that he was given. Thought it was fair.

The difference is Bagley would be inefficient, awful on defense, and still make boneheaded decisions. Holmes plays his role as efficient as possible. I don't think that comparison is relevant. Holmes value isn't only based on the box score.

So you cite stats for Holmes, acknowledge that Bagley could get similar numbers, but then say Bags' numbers are irrelevant. You can't have it both ways. Holmes is the better player, but he's a bench big just like Bagley.

And, no, Holmes doesn't have the hockey assist impact like Haliburton or Draymond. He rolls, dunks, and hustles but he doesn't make others better on offense. And he doesn't have the shot altering presence like Gobert on defense. Holmes can rotate, but there's a reason why the Kings went out and got Len and Thompson. It was a layup line last year. His value beyond the box score is limited despite what you say.

Sure, I mean if you plan on having the league worst defensive team with zero + defenders, then Holmes isn't your guy. I'm not even sure Gobert would have made this team an average defensive team last year. Nobody could have saved them from watching Fox/Buddy/Joseph/etc etc letting guys blow by them all season.

But the days of defense living and dying with the center are long gone. Defense needs to start on the perimeter now that the game is far more guard/wing oriented. We were also near the league worst (27th to be exact) in opponent 3pt %. Does that fall on Richaun as well?

Again, nobody is saying that hes the perfect player. But he shows up every game, is extremely efficient, can switch onto the perimeter, is lights out anywhere around the rim, brings a dogs mentality, and has the best motor on the team.

I can think of many far bigger issues than Richaun.

[kalenclayton]

I’m reading up on these threads and see an argument of Holmes being the problem? Bagley being more impactful? Is this the bizarro Kings board? What is going on?

[LightTheBeam]

:o I’m reading up on these threads and see an argument of Holmes being the problem? Bagley being more impactful? Is this the bizarro Kings board? What is going on?

I'm very confused by anyone saying Holmes has been an issue.

Nobody has played consistently well aside from Holmes/Barnes.

[kalenclayton]

:o I’m reading up on these threads and see an argument of Holmes being the problem? Bagley being more impactful? Is this the bizarro Kings board? What is going on?

I'm very confused by anyone saying Holmes has been an issue.

Nobody has played consistently well aside from Holmes/Barnes.

Agreed. Holmes has been a bright spot every game. The only issue has been the foul trouble. Barnes has been fantastic. Everyone else has been relatively inconsistent (except Davion on defense).