Woj: Domantas Sabonis, J. Lamb, J. Holiday Traded to Sacramento for Tyrese Haliburton, Buddy Hield, T. Thompson

[AussieCeltic]

I actually don’t mind this trade for either team. Obviously would’ve been better if Kings moved Fox instead of Hali but I think Sabonis is a massive pickup.

Do Pacers plan to keep Brogdon now?

[UcanUwill]

Trades like this means the Kings know something about Haliburton that isn't public yet

Or maybe it means Kings are ran by the man who suggested his basketball team should play 4 on 5 defense with 1 guy staying on offense, cherry picking, like its Soccer or smth.

[DroseReturnChi]

As a Knick fan, I've been on the Halliburton train for 3.5 years now (The Summer prior to his last year year in college). I think he's gonna be a star. I would have so gladly traded Randle and two of Walker/Fournier/Burks in the same package that the Pacers just gave to the Kings for Hali/Hield/TT. Which in my opinion is a much better package than the one they just accepted.

he is not a star a guy like patrick williams will dominate hali if both meet their ceilings. a smart gm would never trade randle for hali he is a cheap version of lebron who is basically a point forward. hali has great size for a guard but he is not built well he has serious longevity issues and cannot full time the 3. if im building around a guard, i want sga/j brown type combo guards.

hali can win you a title but he is a complimentary guy. if you dont own a doncic/jokic type unicorn, you dont need a guard version of draymond he is a luxury not a necessity. kings never improved with him they are a 20 win team cant get any worse now.
him and draymond are really useful for only handful of title contenders the idea of them being your number 1 franchise player is ridiculous.

[The-Power]

I don't think Haliburton is necessarily a better player than Sabonis, but his game mesh's much better with the modern NBA. I mean, Sabonis was paired with the perfect frontcourt partner to cover his deficiencies, and it still didn't work. I can throw Haliburton on any roster in the league and he can slide right into 1 or 2 slot. A lengthy playmaker who can shoot the 3 will mesh with any team.

I think this point is the most important one. Let's say both players top out as low-end All-Stars: it's much easier for me to see Haliburton being a key part of a championship team than Sabonis. His archetype is extremely valuable even if he doesn't become a superstar, whereas I find it much harder to imagine a championship-caliber team that allows Sabonis to fully play to his strengths.

[The-Power]

Honesty...good point guards grow on trees these days. You could find them in every draft using just a mid to late first rounder (like Haliburton himself, Maxey, Brunson). Then you have a lot of decent vets that wouldn't cost too much too (e.g. Reggie Jackson, Rondo, etc.). Other positions are more scarce, more important, and more worth it dollar-for-dollar. It's very likely that a guy like Haliburton is getting the max eventually.

Honestly, the easiest position to fill for cheap in the NBA is that of a productive big man, so I'd strongly disagree with this take. Also, comparing Brunson to Haliburton as prospects or calling Rondo a decent vet is odd. That's like me saying you don't need Sabonis if you can just pick up Enes Kanter for cheap. And Haliburton, without a doubt, was an absolute steal relative to where he was picked – you'd have to get incredibly lucky to pick up someone like him in that range of the draft.

[OrangeBlueSkies]

Honesty...good point guards grow on trees these days. You could find them in every draft using just a mid to late first rounder (like Haliburton himself, Maxey, Brunson). Then you have a lot of decent vets that wouldn't cost too much too (e.g. Reggie Jackson, Rondo, etc.). Other positions are more scarce, more important, and more worth it dollar-for-dollar. It's very likely that a guy like Haliburton is getting the max eventually.

Honestly, the easiest position to fill for cheap in the NBA is that of a productive big man, so I'd strongly disagree with this take. Also, comparing Brunson to Haliburton as prospects or calling Rondo a decent vet is odd. That's like me saying you don't need Sabonis if you can just pick up Enes Kanter for cheap. And Haliburton, without a doubt, was an absolute steal relative to where he was picked – you'd have to get incredibly lucky to pick up someone like him in that range of the draft.

You do know that Haliburton was averaging 20ppg/10+ apg on games when Fox sat out right?

he averaged 16 ppg/8 apg in December/January. This is a second year 21 year old.

[runtmc]

Honesty...good point guards grow on trees these days. You could find them in every draft using just a mid to late first rounder (like Haliburton himself, Maxey, Brunson). Then you have a lot of decent vets that wouldn't cost too much too (e.g. Reggie Jackson, Rondo, etc.). Other positions are more scarce, more important, and more worth it dollar-for-dollar. It's very likely that a guy like Haliburton is getting the max eventually.

Honestly, the easiest position to fill for cheap in the NBA is that of a productive big man, so I'd strongly disagree with this take. Also, comparing Brunson to Haliburton as prospects or calling Rondo a decent vet is odd. That's like me saying you don't need Sabonis if you can just pick up Enes Kanter for cheap. And Haliburton, without a doubt, was an absolute steal relative to where he was picked – you'd have to get incredibly lucky to pick up someone like him in that range of the draft.

You do know that Haliburton was averaging 20ppg/10+ apg on games when Fox sat out right?

he averaged 16 ppg/8 apg in December/January. This is a second year 21 year old.

You can't just cherry pick the parts of the season he played well -- because it also means Haliburton averaged just 12p/5a over September and October -- a full 1/4 of the season. And while we're at it, Sabonis averaged 23/13/7 on nearly 70% TS in January.

Cherry picking small samples of when a player gets hot/cold gives a distorted picture of reality, because every player goes through those swings.

[turnaroundJ]

Honesty...good point guards grow on trees these days. You could find them in every draft using just a mid to late first rounder (like Haliburton himself, Maxey, Brunson). Then you have a lot of decent vets that wouldn't cost too much too (e.g. Reggie Jackson, Rondo, etc.). Other positions are more scarce, more important, and more worth it dollar-for-dollar. It's very likely that a guy like Haliburton is getting the max eventually.

Honestly, the easiest position to fill for cheap in the NBA is that of a productive big man, so I'd strongly disagree with this take. Also, comparing Brunson to Haliburton as prospects or calling Rondo a decent vet is odd. That's like me saying you don't need Sabonis if you can just pick up Enes Kanter for cheap. And Haliburton, without a doubt, was an absolute steal relative to where he was picked – you'd have to get incredibly lucky to pick up someone like him in that range of the draft.

You do know that Haliburton was averaging 20ppg/10+ apg on games when Fox sat out right?

he averaged 16 ppg/8 apg in December/January. This is a second year 21 year old.

Except Sabonis is a top 5 Center. It's more likely that Sabonis + a random average PG you could pair him with is going to be better than Haliburton + a random average Center.

There are more good PGs then there are good Centers. More PGs than Centers are productive in this league. I think Sabonis could be the Gasol to someone's Kobe. What can Haliburton be? Can he become a top 10 point guard? Top 10 playmaker? I doubt it.

[ConSarnit]

Here’s why I think it will work better than you think, having three guys who all need the ball in their hands doesn’t make sense. Fox and Mitchell are both very quick with the ball, Sabonis is an absolute beast from the mid post screening. What will happen is Sacramento will play two lightning quick dribble drive guys with Sabonis able to pop, roll, and pass from the high post.

The Suns are consistently tough because they play two amazing mid range jump shooters with Ayton as the screen and lob guy. So teams have to decide between sliding up hard on the mid range jump shot or giving up a lob. Even if the defense covers the lob on the back end all it means is a forward is wide open.

Sacramento will run a different variation where teams have to fear the drive or roll.

Watch on YouTube

Thing is your plan is entirely contingent on Sabonis being able to knock down a jumper, which he has shown so far he cannot (not saying he can't work on it and get a jumper, in that case Sabonis is easily a top 15-20 player in the NBA)

Dude shoots 29% from 10-16 feet, 28% from.16-3 points line, and 32% from beyond the arc.

I don’t think he has to be a great shooter, because I don’t think he will play next to Holmes much of any. If it’s the case that a team sells that hard on stoping the pick n roll action he’s in then the guys on the wing are going to be insanely open. Way more open than they ever were with Haliburton, I don’t think any defense was selling that hard on Haliburton.

This is also a multi year build, the Bulls didn’t have everything they needed after the Vucevic deal. Possible Holmes get traded for PJ Washington who’s shooting 39% from 3p. Fox-Sabonis is a better 1-2 combo than Halliburton was going to be next to Mitchell and Fox, that made less sense.

Why would guys be way more open?

1) Holmes was already very good at pnr as a roll man (1.33ppp)

2) which guys exactly are these open shots helping? they traded away 2/3 of their only good 3pt shooters (Hield and Haliburton).

If they don't play Sabonis/Holmes together what is their lineup?

Fox
Mitchell
Harkless
Barnes
Sabonis

That's literally only 1 good shooter. What opponent isn't just going to clog the paint against the Kings whether they play Sabonis and Holmes together or not? If you trade for Washington their front court defense will be awful. This has got to be one of the worst 3pt shooting teams in the league now and they just traded for a non floor spacing big.

[ConSarnit]

Honestly, the easiest position to fill for cheap in the NBA is that of a productive big man, so I'd strongly disagree with this take. Also, comparing Brunson to Haliburton as prospects or calling Rondo a decent vet is odd. That's like me saying you don't need Sabonis if you can just pick up Enes Kanter for cheap. And Haliburton, without a doubt, was an absolute steal relative to where he was picked – you'd have to get incredibly lucky to pick up someone like him in that range of the draft.

You do know that Haliburton was averaging 20ppg/10+ apg on games when Fox sat out right?

he averaged 16 ppg/8 apg in December/January. This is a second year 21 year old.

Except Sabonis is a top 5 Center. It's more likely that Sabonis + a random average PG you could pair him with is going to be better than Haliburton + a random average Center.

There are more good PGs then there are good Centers. More PGs than Centers are productive in this league. I think Sabonis could be the Gasol to someone's Kobe. What can Haliburton be? Can he become a top 10 point guard? Top 10 playmaker? I doubt it.

Kings: Haliburton and Holmes (average center): 20-36

Pacers: Sabonis and Brogdan (average pg): 19-37

Looks pretty similar to me.

Also, Sabonis is not a top 5 center.

[John Murdoch]

Hield has to be flipped again right? Doesnt fit their timeline at all and will only take minutes from Duarte

[runtmc]

I don't think Haliburton is necessarily a better player than Sabonis, but his game mesh's much better with the modern NBA. I mean, Sabonis was paired with the perfect frontcourt partner to cover his deficiencies, and it still didn't work. I can throw Haliburton on any roster in the league and he can slide right into 1 or 2 slot. A lengthy playmaker who can shoot the 3 will mesh with any team.

I think this point is the most important one. Let's say both players top out as low-end All-Stars: it's much easier for me to see Haliburton being a key part of a championship team than Sabonis. His archetype is extremely valuable even if he doesn't become a superstar, whereas I find it much harder to imagine a championship-caliber team that allows Sabonis to fully play to his strengths.

I don't understand this argument, and people keep making it. Haliburton's calling card is supposed to be his 3p% and how it meshes so much better with the modern NBA. The problem is, the modern NBA is about TS% (efficiency), not 3p%, and Haliburton's TS% is just slightly above average -- he has a TS+ of 103 this season, 102 last season, and a reasonable usage rate. That's fine, but it's nothing special either. There's plenty of players with better usage rates and a higher TS%.

Sabonis on the other hand, has a phenomenal TS+ of 116, and he's doing it on a much better usage rate too. Shooting that efficiently on that high of a usage rate is *exceptionally* valuable, and the fact is not many players can do it, period. In fact, there's literally only a single player in the entire NBA that has a higher TS% on more shots than Sabonis -- Jokic. That's it. And as I mentioned in another post, there's only a small handful of players that are even in Sabonis' vicinity when it comes to efficiency and usage rate and they're virtually all superstars -- Giannis, Durant, Lebron, etc.

On top of that, Sabonis is one of the most well-rounded and best passing big men in the NBA. So why would Haliburton mesh so well and Sabonis wouldn't? Not only is Sabonis exceptionally well-rounded, but he's *much* better at the one thing that's supposed to be Haliburton's best attribute, but Haliburton would mesh well in the "modern NBA" and Sabonis wouldn't? That's just silly. The fact is, a big man that's ultra efficient, high usage, an elite rebounder and a gifted passer would instantly fit onto any roster in the modern NBA -- that's almost the definition of what you're looking for in a big man in today's NBA. Sabonis is more or less a poor man's Jokic, which is still a phenomenal player.

And while we're at it, people need to get over this hangup about Sabonis' shooting. Yeah, he doesn't shoot well outside 10 feet -- so what? Why would you want him to when he's among the league leaders in efficiency and usage doing what he does? This isn't a player just grabbing the occasional offensive rebound putback or lob for a dunk and ending up with a crazy high FG% like say DeAndre Jordan -- Sabonis is dropping 20 a night, so why does he need to change? Shaq couldn't shoot outside 5 feet, and last I checked, most people consider him one of the most dominant players of all time. If you tried criticizing Shaq by saying "yeah, but he's not out there shooting 10-16 foot jumpers," you'd be laughed at. Why would you want Shaq shooting 16 footers when he can dunk it? Or how about James Harden? Harden has never been a very good shooter -- even at his peak, Harden was shooting around 44-45% from the field and 35-36% from 3. Decent, but certainly nothing special. What was special was his combined efficiency and usage rate -- remind you of anyone?

[runtmc]

You do know that Haliburton was averaging 20ppg/10+ apg on games when Fox sat out right?

he averaged 16 ppg/8 apg in December/January. This is a second year 21 year old.

Except Sabonis is a top 5 Center. It's more likely that Sabonis + a random average PG you could pair him with is going to be better than Haliburton + a random average Center.

There are more good PGs then there are good Centers. More PGs than Centers are productive in this league. I think Sabonis could be the Gasol to someone's Kobe. What can Haliburton be? Can he become a top 10 point guard? Top 10 playmaker? I doubt it.

Kings: Haliburton and Holmes (average center): 20-36

Pacers: Sabonis and Brogdan (average pg): 19-37

Looks pretty similar to me.

Also, Sabonis is not a top 5 center.

Not a top 5 center -- are you sure? I don't think I can think of 5 centers that are hands down better than Sabonis, and I think you can make a pretty good case he's the 4th best center in the NBA. Jokic, Embiid and Gobert are the only ones I'd definitely put in front of him. Id put Anthony Davis in there too, if you consider him a C, so maybe that's 4, but Sabonis is right at the top of that next tier of guys like KAT, Valanciunas, Jarrett Allen, Clint Capela, etc. I think it's definitely debatable between him and KAT -- personally I'd take Sabonis -- but I wouldn't call you crazy if you put KAT over him. But even still, I think he's better than the rest of them, so worst case, that makes him arguably 5th or 6th, even with Davis considered a center, and 4th or 5th if you consider Davis a PF? Am I missing anyone obvious?

[BrianInPhilly]

Hearing people on here discuss whose better while using stats as evidence is so tiresome. Especially when one guy (Sabonis) has stats that make him look better than he is while Halliburton’s stats don’t give him justice for obvious reasons if you’ve watched the Kings play. Meaning Sabonis’ lack of rim protection is a huge hole the stats don’t show, while Haliburton played on a Kings team that for most of the season featured the main play being Fox or Barnes isoing while Buddy chucks a 3 every tie he touches. No guard would have gaudy point totals under that environment.

Bottom line is the Kings have done what bad teams do. Put together so called “skilled talent” with no idea how it fits into a 5 on 5 scheme. Pretty much what they’ve done the last decade. Building around Fox/Sabonis sets them up to have a bad defensive team OR a team that can’t shoot, which is a recipe for disaster anyway you slice it.

Yes Sabonis is “skilled” but he’s missing literally the 2 most important skills in basketball - defense and shooting. Specifically for a big, protecting the paint is the #1 task ESPECIALLY if you can’t shoot. A guy that can protect the paint & say even has 1 skill offensively like finish inside (Gobert / Allen) will always be superior over a guy like Sabonis no matter how good his stats look.

Not surprisingly Kings didn’t get that memo though. Now they’re setting themselves up to be an average defensive team AT BEST even with more pieces , and they need to be literally a top 5 offense to contend now. Good luck.

[The-Power]

I don't understand this argument, and people keep making it. Haliburton's calling card is supposed to be his 3p% and how it meshes so much better with the modern NBA. The problem is, the modern NBA is about TS% (efficiency), not 3p%, and Haliburton's TS% is just slightly above average -- he has a TS+ of 103 this season, 102 last season, and a reasonable usage rate. That's fine, but it's nothing special either. There's plenty of players with better usage rates and a higher TS%.

There are plenty of things to unpack here.

First, not all TS% is created equal. Other factors that absolutely matter are volume, spacing effects, ability to create high percentage shots for oneself, the scoring threat (especially off the dribble) that opens up opportunities for others and overall scalability (which partly, but not exclusively, link to spacing). Of course, it also matters how easy scoring can be replaced (and it's easier to find highly efficient big men than Guards). Also, it's never just about TS%, or individual scoring efficiency – ultimately what matters is lifting your team's offense, of which individual scoring is just one of many aspects; and it's no coincidence that in the modern NBA, offenses are driven by perimeter-oriented players and not post-players. That cannot be denied.

Second, Haliburton's calling card actually isn't his 3P%. It is part of why he fits into the modern NBA but not what is most intriguing about him. What makes him so valuable is that he can play two positions, he can play on and off the ball, he is not ball dominant, he is an excellent passer AND he can shoot efficiently, which spaces the floor. In other words, Haliburton is one of the easiest guys to plug into any system and he's going to make it better. So if you're looking solely at TS% or volume scoring, you're arguing against a straw man.

Third, you keep comparing these players as they are. I doubt anybody denies that Sabonis is currently better. But a sizable part of Haliburton's appeal is his age and the fact that he plays this well already at age 21. Sabonis, of course, is still fairly young himself but it's hard to not see Haliburton as being further away from his prime and peak. That, of course, has to be factored in when assessing this trade. And as I noted before, if Haliburton reaches close to Sabonis level I don't see how he's not more appealing to most teams due to his plug-and-play profile that allows him to scale well next to more talent.

On top of that, Sabonis is one of the most well-rounded and best passing big men in the NBA. So why would Haliburton mesh so well and Sabonis wouldn't?

Because Haliburton can effectively guard multiple positions, space the floor for others and play off the ball at a high level. You keep focusing on one aspect and then pretend as if nothing else matters – first it was individual scoring efficiency, then passing. Yet those are neither everything there is, nor is all passing or scoring created equal. I'm sure if you're being honest, you'd at least acknowledge that Sabonis and Haliburton make plays and score in very different ways, and that this cannot be just brushed aside in terms of what this means for teams.

Not only is Sabonis exceptionally well-rounded, but he's *much* better at the one thing that's supposed to be Haliburton's best attribute, but Haliburton would mesh well in the "modern NBA" and Sabonis wouldn't? That's just silly. The fact is, an ultra efficient, high usage, phenomenal passing big man would instantly fit onto any roster in the modern NBA.

Are you referring to his passing (in which case I'd strongly disagree that he's better, much less ‘much’) or his scoring (in which case you're not talking about Haliburton's best attribute, and also focus only on context-deprived individual numbers as well as the status quo).

Either way, I disagree with your last statement.
– For starters, high-usage players are almost always tougher to fit into any roster. Sometimes it's well worth it, but this statement is odd.
– Second, when it comes to scoring it matters how a player does it and to which extent it positively impacts the rest of the team. For instance, player that is very efficient on high volume by scoring in the low post is unlikely to fully maximize the talent around him (unless perhaps the player is constantly doubled and the roster is built around this player to take advantage of that – in which case said player is no longer and easy fit).
– Third, I agree that Sabonis passing is a great asset. But in order to maximize passing ability out of the post, you need a specific system with players that can shoot and move well off the ball. This system can work, for sure, but you can't just put a high-volume stationary passer into *any* system and expect ideal results; there are plenty of systems, and plenty of stars, that are not build to seamlessly incorporate such a player.

And even if you perhaps don't perfectly maximize Haliburton's strengths in any system, every single team in the NBA can integrate a high-level shooter who moves well off the ball, defends multiple positions well and adds high-level primary or secondary playmaking. Without exception. On the other hand, teams that either lack shooting, have ball-dominant perimeter stars, or already have a high-usage big (perhaps even one that operates a lot as a playmaker) will struggle to integrate Sabonis without diminishing returns. And at that point, you're quickly looking at a majority of the good teams. Let's just have a look:

Suns: not a great fit as his passing would be greatly diminished with Paul having so much control. He would be fine at the 5 but the Suns prefer other types in that position, and he definitely doesn't fit their model of what a 4 looks like (they want a big wing that can shoot)

Warriors: Sabonis would fit on offense even though there is some overlap with Green and his passing impact would be diminished whenever Green controls the offense. He'd probably be fine on defense next to Green. But the Warriors best line-up would most likely still be with Green at the 5 and another perimeter player to have a fast small-ball line-up that won them multiple titles.

Memphis: He seems to fit on defense, and he could fit on offense – but that depends on Morant's future development. He's a nice complement to Jackson but I do believe that ultimately the Grizzlies best shot at becoming a contender is by making Jackson work at the 5. So Sabonis is a solid fit but not necessarily someone who would lift them up to the next level.

Jazz: They have Gobert and Sabonis is best at the 5 or next to a versatile 4 that can shoot (while protecting the rim some). I don't see how you wouldn't have diminishing returns here on offense. And on defense, the Jazz' system can't really afford to have a second player who you wouldn't want to guard too much at the perimeter, and his rebounding would see diminishing returns on both ends as that area around the rim is Gobert's space first and foremost.

Mavs: They have a heliocentric offense around Doncic. In order to maximize Sabonis, Luka would have to learn to play more effectively off the ball. That, perhaps, would be the best case for the future but it certainly doesn't make Sabonis a seamless fit. I also believe Doncic works best with an athletic big that provides vertical spacing.

Nuggets: The overlap with Jokic is obvious, that'd certainly be a bad fit and have greatly diminishing returns.

Clippers: They seem to be looking for a different type of big man. He could work there but with the players they have, it wouldn't be seamless to create a system predicated on (off-)ball movement that would maximize Sabonis passing – certainly not with Kawhi gone. But yeah, probably the fit would be fine overall.

Lakers: Nope. LeBron mostly needs shooters and athletic bigs, and the Lakers' best line-ups are with him and AD at the 4 and 5 – not a good fit.

Heat: Bam roughly plays the role that Sabonis would play and he does it obviously very well. Good fit without him, but since he's there and a key part of the system, Sabonis doesn't fit well.

Bucks: The Bucks next to Giannis prefer a 3pt-shooting big because Giannis is the main big that they want to have the ball in his hands and be an aggressive scorer next to their guard/wing options. The best playoff line-ups are also those with Giannis at the 5. Not a good fit.

Bulls: Instead of Vucevic, he could actually work. But not next to him. So if you want to upgrade from Vucevic to Sabonis, that would be fine – but he certainly isn't an easy plug-and-play guy for the Bulls as long as Vucevic is there and sees a lot of minutes.

Cavs: They have Allen and Mobley and are therefore set at the 4 and 5. Add to this that neither of them shoots well and Sabonis isn't a great fit. Maybe he could work as part of a 3-man rotation at the 4/5 (easier fit with Mobley than Allen, though) but that's not really how you maximize Sabonis either.

76ers: I don't see how he'd work next to Embiid, who obviously plays the 5 whenever he's on the floor and occupies the low-post and takes up a ton of shots that they want out of their big. Not a fit.

Raptors: One of the better fits, although as currently constructed their four best players (FVV, OG, Siakam and Barnes) alongside Sabonis would struggle to create enough spacing, so you'd likely have to figure that out first. And there's also a good chance that Barnes and Siakam at the 4/5 is their best option to close in the playoffs going forward (if Siakam stays). Sabonis would improve them if added right now, but once again you can't just play your four best players and plug Sabonis in.

Celtics: Good fit, I believe. He'd do well there starting next to Williams and without him at the 5, provided that their perimeter players are willing to move off the ball a lot.

Nets: They need a different kind of player next to Harden, Kyrie and Durant. They need someone who is low usage and lifts up their defense. Not a fit.

Hornets: Could work on offense, but their bigger concern is defense and he doesn't fix that at the 5. Not the worst fit on offense but overall not ideal.

Hawks: Trae Young is their offensive engine, and he needs a lob threat more than anything. Add to it that Collins is fairly high usage and that they need to fix their terrible defense and I don't see Sabonis as a fit.

That's the top 9 teams of each conference, and it's really tough to argue that he's an easy plug and play guy who can seamlessly maximize his talents on most of these rosters. Could he improve some of the rosters? Sure. But mostly because he's a talented player, not because he's a great fit for any system. I haven't done this list for Haliburton but it would look vastly different. He wouldn't start on every team *in the short term* (e.g. Suns, Warriors) but on most he would and I don't think there's a single team out there where he wouldn't play a lot of minutes because the coaches would be excited about all the different line-up combinations that are possible.

Or how about James Harden? Harden has never been a very good shooter -- even at his peak, Harden was shooting around 44-45% from the field and 35-36% from 3. Decent, but certainly nothing special. What was special was his combined efficiency and usage rate -- remind you of anyone?

No, what's special about Harden was that you could just give him the ball with some spot-up shooters and a lob-threat around him and he's going to give you a good offense. It was Harden-ball. His efficiency and usage was part of what allowed him to be this kind of offensive engine, but only because he did it in a certain way: off the dribble, elite in isolation on the perimeter, great passer on the move, constant shooting threat with his step-backs. That's pretty much exactly the opposite of what Sabonis is and does, and Sabonis needs a completely different team set-up.

Again, you completely take two aspects of the game, neglect context entirely and arrive at completely absurd conclusions. This comparison takes the cake in that regard. Sabonis is not Shaq either. I'm not sure if you believe in the comparisons yourself but I don't think anyone else would take them seriously.

edit: And one thing I forgot to mention is that Sabonis has actually struggled to lift the Pacers' offense for a second straight year.

Last year, they had an 111.2 ORTG with him on the floor and a 116.4 ORTG without (-5.2) (leave average ORTG was 112.3). This is the the worst on/off net rating among all rotation players! This year, they have 110.9 ORTG with him on the floor and a 111.7 ORTG without (-0.8) (league average ORTG is 110.5). This is the second lowest numbers among the starters.

Those just aren't numbers you see from offensive superstars, to which you have compared Sabonis here, over the course of two seasons. He's far away from being an offensive anchor as he leads average offense that do see a drop when he goes to the bench. Thus far, he just hasn't been the kind of player that lifts his team's offense to an extent that the best offensive players consistently do.

[BrianInPhilly]

Thing is your plan is entirely contingent on Sabonis being able to knock down a jumper, which he has shown so far he cannot (not saying he can't work on it and get a jumper, in that case Sabonis is easily a top 15-20 player in the NBA)

Dude shoots 29% from 10-16 feet, 28% from.16-3 points line, and 32% from beyond the arc.

I don’t think he has to be a great shooter, because I don’t think he will play next to Holmes much of any. If it’s the case that a team sells that hard on stoping the pick n roll action he’s in then the guys on the wing are going to be insanely open. Way more open than they ever were with Haliburton, I don’t think any defense was selling that hard on Haliburton.

This is also a multi year build, the Bulls didn’t have everything they needed after the Vucevic deal. Possible Holmes get traded for PJ Washington who’s shooting 39% from 3p. Fox-Sabonis is a better 1-2 combo than Halliburton was going to be next to Mitchell and Fox, that made less sense.

Why would guys be way more open?

1) Holmes was already very good at pnr as a roll man (1.33ppp)

2) which guys exactly are these open shots helping? they traded away 2/3 of their only good 3pt shooters (Hield and Haliburton).

If they don't play Sabonis/Holmes together what is their lineup?

Fox
Mitchell
Harkless
Barnes
Sabonis

That's literally only 1 good shooter. What opponent isn't just going to clog the paint against the Kings whether they play Sabonis and Holmes together or not? If you trade for Washington their front court defense will be awful. This has got to be one of the worst 3pt shooting teams in the league now and they just traded for a non floor spacing big.

Exactly.

Basketball is not played in a vacuum. In a vacuum just looking at skills, sure Sabonis is better than Haliburton. In reality with the task to build a cohesive winning 5 man unit, he’s not.

[BrianInPhilly]

I don't understand this argument, and people keep making it. Haliburton's calling card is supposed to be his 3p% and how it meshes so much better with the modern NBA. The problem is, the modern NBA is about TS% (efficiency), not 3p%, and Haliburton's TS% is just slightly above average -- he has a TS+ of 103 this season, 102 last season, and a reasonable usage rate. That's fine, but it's nothing special either. There's plenty of players with better usage rates and a higher TS%.

There are plenty of things to unpack here.

First, not all TS% is created equal. Other factors that absolutely matter are volume, spacing effects, ability to create high percentage shots for oneself, the scoring threat (especially off the dribble) that opens up opportunities for others and overall scalability (which partly, but not exclusively, link to spacing). Of course, it also matters how easy scoring can be replaced (and it's easier to find highly efficient big men than Guards). Also, it's never just about TS%, or individual scoring efficiency – ultimately what matters is lifting your team's offense, of which individual scoring is just one of many aspects; and it's no coincidence that in the modern NBA, offenses are driven by perimeter-oriented players and not post-players. That cannot be denied.

Second, Haliburton's calling card actually isn't his 3P%. It is part of why he fits into the modern NBA but not what is most intriguing about him. What makes him so valuable is that he can play two positions, he can play on and off the ball, he is not ball dominant, he is an excellent passer AND he can shoot efficiently, which spaces the floor. In other words, Haliburton is one of the easiest guys to plug into any system and he's going to make it better. So if you're looking solely at TS% or volume scoring, you're arguing against a straw man.

Third, you keep comparing these players as they are. I doubt anybody denies that Sabonis is currently better. But a sizable part of Haliburton's appeal is his age and the fact that he plays this well already at age 21. Sabonis, of course, is still fairly young himself but it's hard to not see Haliburton as being further away from his prime and peak. That, of course, has to be factored in when assessing this trade. And as I noted before, if Haliburton reaches close to Sabonis level I don't see how he's not more appealing to most teams due to his plug-and-play profile that allows him to scale well next to more talent.

On top of that, Sabonis is one of the most well-rounded and best passing big men in the NBA. So why would Haliburton mesh so well and Sabonis wouldn't?

Because Haliburton can effectively guard multiple positions, space the floor for others and play off the ball at a high level. You keep focusing on one aspect and then pretend as if nothing else matters – first it was individual scoring efficiency, then passing. Yet those are neither everything there is, nor is all passing or scoring created equal. I'm sure if you're being honest, you'd at least acknowledge that Sabonis and Haliburton make plays and score in very different ways, and that this cannot be just brushed aside in terms of what this means for teams.

Not only is Sabonis exceptionally well-rounded, but he's *much* better at the one thing that's supposed to be Haliburton's best attribute, but Haliburton would mesh well in the "modern NBA" and Sabonis wouldn't? That's just silly. The fact is, an ultra efficient, high usage, phenomenal passing big man would instantly fit onto any roster in the modern NBA.

Are you referring to his passing (in which case I'd strongly disagree that he's better, much less ‘much’) or his scoring (in which case you're not talking about Haliburton's best attribute, and also focus only on context-deprived individual numbers as well as the status quo).

Either way, I disagree with your last statement.
– For starters, high-usage players are almost always tougher to fit into any roster. Sometimes it's well worth it, but this statement is odd.
– Second, when it comes to scoring it matters how a player does it and to which extent it positively impacts the rest of the team. For instance, player that is very efficient on high volume by scoring in the low post is unlikely to fully maximize the talent around him (unless perhaps the player is constantly doubled and the roster is built around this player to take advantage of that – in which case said player is no longer and easy fit).
– Third, I agree that Sabonis passing is a great asset. But in order to maximize passing ability out of the post, you need a specific system with players that can shoot and move well off the ball. This system can work, for sure, but you can't just put a high-volume stationary passer into *any* system and expect ideal results; there are plenty of systems, and plenty of stars, that are not build to seamlessly incorporate such a player.

And even if you perhaps don't perfectly maximize Haliburton's strengths in any system, every single team in the NBA can integrate a high-level shooter who moves well off the ball, defends multiple positions well and adds high-level primary or secondary playmaking. Without exception. On the other hand, teams that either lack shooting, have ball-dominant perimeter stars, or already have a high-usage big (perhaps even one that operates a lot as a playmaker) will struggle to integrate Sabonis without diminishing returns. And at that point, you're quickly looking at a majority of the good teams. Let's just have a look:

Suns: not a great fit as his passing would be greatly diminished with Paul having so much control. He would be fine at the 5 but the Suns prefer other types in that position, and he definitely doesn't fit their model of what a 4 looks like (they want a big wing that can shoot)

Warriors: Sabonis would fit on offense even though there is some overlap with Green and his passing impact would be diminished whenever Green controls the offense. He'd probably be fine on defense next to Green. But the Warriors best line-up would most likely still be with Green at the 5 and another perimeter player to have a fast small-ball line-up that won them multiple titles.

Memphis: He seems to fit on defense, and he could fit on offense – but that depends on Morant's future development. He's a nice complement to Jackson but I do believe that ultimately the Grizzlies best shot at becoming a contender is by making Jackson work at the 5. So Sabonis is a solid fit but not necessarily someone who would lift them up to the next level.

Jazz: They have Gobert and Sabonis is best at the 5 or next to a versatile 4 that can shoot (while protecting the rim some). I don't see how you wouldn't have diminishing returns here on offense. And on defense, the Jazz' system can't really afford to have a second player who you wouldn't want to guard too much at the perimeter, and his rebounding would see diminishing returns on both ends as that area around the rim is Gobert's space first and foremost.

Mavs: They have a heliocentric offense around Doncic. In order to maximize Sabonis, Luka would have to learn to play more effectively off the ball. That, perhaps, would be the best case for the future but it certainly doesn't make Sabonis a seamless fit. I also believe Doncic works best with an athletic big that provides vertical spacing.

Nuggets: The overlap with Jokic is obvious, that'd certainly be a bad fit and have greatly diminishing returns.

Clippers: They seem to be looking for a different type of big man. He could work there but with the players they have, it wouldn't be seamless to create a system predicated on (off-)ball movement that would maximize Sabonis passing – certainly not with Kawhi gone. But yeah, probably the fit would be fine overall.

Lakers: Nope. LeBron mostly needs shooters and athletic bigs, and the Lakers' best line-ups are with him and AD at the 4 and 5 – not a good fit.

Heat: Bam roughly plays the role that Sabonis would play and he does it obviously very well. Good fit without him, but since he's there and a key part of the system, Sabonis doesn't fit well.

Bucks: The Bucks next to Giannis prefer a 3pt-shooting big because Giannis is the main big that they want to have the ball in his hands and be an aggressive scorer next to their guard/wing options. The best playoff line-ups are also those with Giannis at the 5. Not a good fit.

Bulls: Instead of Vucevic, he could actually work. But not next to him. So if you want to upgrade from Vucevic to Sabonis, that would be fine – but he certainly isn't an easy plug-and-play guy for the Bulls as long as Vucevic is there and sees a lot of minutes.

Cavs: They have Allen and Mobley and are therefore set at the 4 and 5. Add to this that neither of them shoots well and Sabonis isn't a great fit. Maybe he could work as part of a 3-man rotation at the 4/5 (easier fit with Mobley than Allen, though) but that's not really how you maximize Sabonis either.

76ers: I don't see how he'd work next to Embiid, who obviously plays the 5 whenever he's on the floor and occupies the low-post and takes up a ton of shots that they want out of their big. Not a fit.

Raptors: One of the better fits, although as currently constructed their four best players (FVV, OG, Siakam and Barnes) alongside Sabonis would struggle to create enough spacing, so you'd likely have to figure that out first. And there's also a good chance that Barnes and Siakam at the 4/5 is their best option to close in the playoffs going forward (if Siakam stays). Sabonis would improve them if added right now, but once again you can't just play your four best players and plug Sabonis in.

Celtics: Good fit, I believe. He'd do well there starting next to Williams and without him at the 5, provided that their perimeter players are willing to move off the ball a lot.

Nets: They need a different kind of player next to Harden, Kyrie and Durant. They need someone who is low usage and lifts up their defense. Not a fit.

Hornets: Could work on offense, but their bigger concern is defense and he doesn't fix that at the 5. Not the worst fit on offense but overall not ideal.

Hawks: Trae Young is their offensive engine, and he needs a lob threat more than anything. Add to it that Collins is fairly high usage and that they need to fix their terrible defense and I don't see Sabonis as a fit.

That's the top 9 teams of each conference, and it's really tough to argue that he's an easy plug and play guy who can seamlessly maximize his talents on most of these rosters. Could he improve some of the rosters? Sure. But mostly because he's a talented player, not because he's a great fit for any system. I haven't done this list for Haliburton but it would look vastly different. He wouldn't start on every team *in the short term* (e.g. Suns, Warriors) but on most he would and I don't think there's a single team out there where he wouldn't play a lot of minutes because the coaches would be excited about all the different line-up combinations that are possible.

Or how about James Harden? Harden has never been a very good shooter -- even at his peak, Harden was shooting around 44-45% from the field and 35-36% from 3. Decent, but certainly nothing special. What was special was his combined efficiency and usage rate -- remind you of anyone?

No, what's special about Harden was that you could just give him the ball with some spot-up shooters and a lob-threat around him and he's going to give you a good offense. It was Harden-ball. His efficiency and usage was part of what allowed him to be this kind of offensive engine, but only because he did it in a certain way: off the dribble, elite in isolation on the perimeter, great passer on the move, constant shooting threat with his step-backs. That's pretty much exactly the opposite of what Sabonis is and does, and Sabonis needs a completely different team set-up.

Again, you completely take two aspects of the game, neglect context entirely and arrive at completely absurd conclusions. This comparison takes the cake in that regard. Sabonis is not Shaq either. I'm not sure if you believe in the comparisons yourself but I don't think anyone else would take them seriously.

This is an amazing post by the way. Who’s paying you? Lol.

A common theme is pretty much every team wants a defensive minded center or a versatile big to play small ball with to switch. Sabonis is neither.

[ConSarnit]

Except Sabonis is a top 5 Center. It's more likely that Sabonis + a random average PG you could pair him with is going to be better than Haliburton + a random average Center.

There are more good PGs then there are good Centers. More PGs than Centers are productive in this league. I think Sabonis could be the Gasol to someone's Kobe. What can Haliburton be? Can he become a top 10 point guard? Top 10 playmaker? I doubt it.

Kings: Haliburton and Holmes (average center): 20-36

Pacers: Sabonis and Brogdan (average pg): 19-37

Looks pretty similar to me.

Also, Sabonis is not a top 5 center.

Not a top 5 center -- are you sure? I don't think I can think of 5 centers that are hands down better than Sabonis, and I think you can make a pretty good case he's the 4th best center in the NBA. Jokic, Embiid and Gobert are the only ones I'd definitely put in front of him. Id put Anthony Davis in there too, if you consider him a C, so maybe that's 4, but Sabonis is right at the top of that next tier of guys like KAT, Valanciunas, Jarrett Allen, Clint Capela, etc. I think it's definitely debatable between him and KAT -- personally I'd take Sabonis -- but I wouldn't call you crazy if you put KAT over him. But even still, I think he's better than the rest of them, so worst case, that makes him arguably 5th or 6th, even with Davis considered a center, and 4th or 5th if you consider Davis a PF? Am I missing anyone obvious?

I guess it gets murky if we're including PF/C type players but I'd have:

Embiid
Jokic
Gobert
Towns
Bam
Davis
Draymond
Ayton

then debatable guys like:

Allen
Vucevic

Sabonis has good skills but they aren't really what you'd need from a C if you're optimizing your team. Below average defense and can't stretch the floor. I'm lower on Sabonis than most because his fit is tenuous almost anywhere he goes. A center with real defensive limitations is a difficult fit unless they have elite offensive skills like Jokic and Towns, and it could be argued both of those guys are better or equal to Sabonis on the defensive end (Towns has improved enough this year to classify as below average).

I think on a very good team Sabonis' offensive value would drop and his defense wouldn't be able to compensate. On middling teams I can definitely see the argument for him over guys like Draymond or Allen.

[sisibilio]

Except Sabonis is a top 5 Center. It's more likely that Sabonis + a random average PG you could pair him with is going to be better than Haliburton + a random average Center.

There are more good PGs then there are good Centers. More PGs than Centers are productive in this league. I think Sabonis could be the Gasol to someone's Kobe. What can Haliburton be? Can he become a top 10 point guard? Top 10 playmaker? I doubt it.

Kings: Haliburton and Holmes (average center): 20-36

Pacers: Sabonis and Brogdan (average pg): 19-37

Looks pretty similar to me.

Also, Sabonis is not a top 5 center.

Not a top 5 center -- are you sure? I don't think I can think of 5 centers that are hands down better than Sabonis, and I think you can make a pretty good case he's the 4th best center in the NBA. Jokic, Embiid and Gobert are the only ones I'd definitely put in front of him. Id put Anthony Davis in there too, if you consider him a C, so maybe that's 4, but Sabonis is right at the top of that next tier of guys like KAT, Valanciunas, Jarrett Allen, Clint Capela, etc. I think it's definitely debatable between him and KAT -- personally I'd take Sabonis -- but I wouldn't call you crazy if you put KAT over him. But even still, I think he's better than the rest of them, so worst case, that makes him arguably 5th or 6th, even with Davis considered a center, and 4th or 5th if you consider Davis a PF? Am I missing anyone obvious?

I've been a fan of Sabonis since before he joined Gonzaga so i'm pretty biased in his favor, and still recognize there's no debate between him and KAT. Cmon

[510TWSS]

Until the Kings actually make a roster move that isn't laughed at by a majority of casual and hardcore NBA fans, they deserve very little benefit of the doubt. This isn't some Harden to the Rockets for Kevin Martin levels of inept, but it does seem like an opportunity missed and the situation in no way shape or form helped out by the Kings themselves.

They decided to give the extension to Fox and draft Davion with Hali on the roster. Thinking they have to make a move because they can't get what they want for Fox so they're now left to repair that relationship and Davion looking like he could be a decent player doesn't mean this Hali trade needed to happen.

I think had the Kings used Hali in a trade for Simmons, we'd see a lot less people in arms over it ready to mock the Kings. Domantas is a great player, top 40 or somewhere around there but not the type of headliner one would expect if you're giving up a top young asset widely recognized by the league on a team who's at the bottom of a stacked west and owner who's issued a playoff mandate.

All in all, I feel for you Kings fans -- i will put a moratorium on Kings slander for an indefinite period of time going forward.