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

[T-d0t]

Lol I didn't even notice the 2 Jeremy Lambs in the initial tweet. I just saw Sobonis for Hali

[r0drig0lac]

I don't mind it for the Kings. They get Sabonis, who is on a good 20m per year contract until 2024. And people are overrating Haliburton on here, it's not like he's been setting the league on fire with his 14 ppg.

Exactly, it's kind of ridiculous how much people in general are out there guaranteeing he's going to be a star or something, and going to have a permanent improvement curve, whereas the guy who's really accomplished something and really been a star for the last two seasons(before turning 25) is exactly what it is.

[Sakkreth]

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

I'd take Sabonis

[Hoop Hunter]

Lol I didn't even notice the 2 Jeremy Lambs in the initial tweet. I just saw Sobonis for Hali

I hated Lamb's time in Indy soooo much. We got to trade him twice! LOL.

He shoots good 1 game out of 5 games, you'll learn to hate him also, Sacramento.

[SNPA]

Read on Twitter

?cxt=HHwWgMDU7deZ0bIpAAAA

[runtmc]

There are plenty of things to unpack here.

... edited for brevity when reposting ...

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.

I applaud the effort and time it took to write that, but your arguments have a ton of holes. However, given you spent that much time on your post, I will respond in kind. Onto the dissertation!

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.

With the first part of this quote, you're saying a lot of stuff, but I'm not really sure what your point is. I generally agree, there are lots of factors that can effect TS%, but are you trying to make the case that Haliburton's TS% would be higher than Sabonis' in a vacuum/on an average team? If not, what is your point? My post was a response to a poster claiming that Haliburton's playstyle meshed better in the modern nba, and I replied and gave my evidence for why I thought so. You're replying to my reply, but your reply has nothing really to do with the topic except some vague assertions about TS%, and nothing to do with Sabonis, Haliburton or how their playstyles mesh in the NBA.

As regards the second half of the paragraph, where you assert that it cannot be denied that offenses are driven by perimeter-oriented players and not post-players: a) it absolutely can be, Denver/Jokic is the easiest example, Philly/Embiid would be another -- it entirely depends on where the talent on the team is and b) again, what is the point you are trying to make? You seem to be vaguely implying that Haliburton is more valuable by virtue of being a guard and not a post player -- is that where you're going with this? It makes it extremely difficult to have a conversation when you don't stay on the topic at hand or make any actual points relevant to the discussion. I say this not to flame, but sincerely with the intent of constructively criticizing so that we can have a more productive discussion.

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.

First, yes, positional flexibility certainly has some value, but his calling card at this point in his career is absolutely his 3pt shooting -- I don't know why you would even try to argue this point. When someone refers to a player's calling card, that means the thing they are known for, their most valuable attribute. Being a tweener 1/2 can be nice, if you can competently do both things, but that alone won't keep your spot on an NBA roster. Shooting 40%+ from 3p actually will keep you on an NBA roster, even if you do everything else badly -- there are plenty of examples of that, but none that I can think of where a team kept a bad player around solely because they had positional flexibility. I'd be willing to wager every team in the NBA, if offered to magically grant their PG the ability to play another position or the ability to shoot 40%+ from 3, every single team would take the shooting.

Second, no, I don't think it's a given you could plug Haliburton into any system and he would make it better -- take GSW for example -- would Haliburton start over Klay or Curry? I think not, and he would even struggle to find minutes off the bench given how well our role players are playing. Could he find *some* minutes? Sure, but if that is the definition we're going with, then Sabonis also fits the criteria and I don't know what the point of making this statement was in the first place -- there's not a team in the NBA that wouldn't be able to find *some* minutes for Sabonis.

Third, you replied to my entire post, so you know that TS% wasn't the only thing I used to support my positions, so your statement is literally irrelevant, and ironically, a strawman itself.

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.

This isn't true. I wrote several posts a few pages back about the player's career trajectories and compared them on a season by season basis. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't see those posts, but a) obviously there is no need to repeat the points I made in previous posts and b) comparing them as they are was relevant to the discussion/topics that were currently being discussed. I'll also point out you're assuming that only Haliburton will continue to improve, when Sabonis is still only 25 hasn't reached his peak years either. You're also making the assumption of his improvement to Sabonis' current level without providing any evidence for why he would.

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.

First of all, you've only discussed why Haliburton would mesh well, but have completely failed to address the quote which you are directly replying to, in which I am literally stating the question "So why would Haliburton mesh so well and Sabonis wouldn't?" You at least are citing some reasons for why you think Haliburton would mesh well, so that is something, but the literal point of my entire post was pointing out the fallacy that Sabonis WOULDN'T mesh well, and you've yet to address that -- at all.

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).

I was referring to scoring efficiency -- the calling card/best attribute I mentioned earlier in the post -- not passing. Also just to touch on it since you've mentioned it, as far as his passing goes, I am curious as to why you would disagree. Particularly since you keep mentioning context being important for stats (which I obviously agree with), I would hope you wouldn't turn around and cite simple assist per game numbers. However, even then, it's far closer than it should be, even without context: Haliburton has averaged 6.3apg the last two seasons, Sabonis 5.9apg. Sabonis has averaged a 25% AST% over the past 2 seasons, Haliburton has averaged 28%. Of course, the relevant context is that assist numbers are obviously dependent upon the number of opportunities, and as a primary ballhandler, simply by virtue of his position, Haliburton has far, far more opportunities every game. And once you factor in the number of opportunities each gets because of their position, I don't think it's much of a stretch at all to say that Sabonis is a much better passer, flat out, and additionally, I think it goes without saying he's a much better passer for his position.

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.

This is simply not true. High-usage, low efficiency players are hard to fit into a roster -- see Westbrook. High efficiency, high usage players are not -- among players with at least a 60% TS, the 5 highest usage rates belong to: Embiid, Giannis, Durant, Jokic, and Lebron. I don't think there's a team in the league that wouldn't figure out how to fit any of those guys onto their roster. Westbrook? Not so much.

– 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.

So your point in both of these statements seems to boil down to: not every system would "ideally maximize" Sabonis' talents. Fair enough, but this also seems obvious at face value, as I don't think there's really any player that would have all of their talents perfectly maximized in *every* system. Knocking just Sabonis' for that doesn't really seem fair or intellectually honest. You say to maximize Sabonis' passing that you need players that can shoot and move well off ball -- sure, but then the corollary is that to maximize a shooter like Haliburton's talents, you need players that can pass well and find him when he's open. Otherwise lots of his open looks will go to waste. I'd even argue it's harder to find good passers than it is to find good shooters, so you could even make the argument that Sabonis' passing is more universal to more systems than Haliburton's shooting. Regardless, I think you're beyond clutching at straws if you're trying to argue that Sabonis' passing is somehow detrimental to his ability to mesh in the modern NBA.

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.

You've shifted the goalposts to where Sabonis now has to mesh into a team without diminishing returns, while making the blanket statement that Haliburton's skills would simply fit into *any* system. There's certainly PLENTY of teams and systems where Haliburton's skillset would have diminishing returns, but instead you've tried to rig the argument so that only Sabonis has to meet this diminishing returns criteria. That's just flat out intellectually dishonest. Second, there's literally no evidence to suggest Haliburton is a good defender -- in fact the opposite is true, the evidence suggests he's a *bad* defender. His career defensive BPM is negative, his career defensive rating at B-R is 116, which is well below league average, his defensive rating at B-R this season is 114, and at nba.com it's 113, good for 476th in the league (for reference, Sabonis' career rating is 108 at B-R, 111 at B-R this season, and 108 this season at nba.com, while his Def BPM is solidly positive, which all point to him being slightly above league average).

On top of that, this is a strawman, as I never made a claim that Sabonis meshed perfectly or without diminishing returns -- all of the team examples you show are simply cases of that, and you don't hold Haliburton to the same criteria. Take GSW, Sabonis would certainly be able to mesh with GSW -- would his skills be perfectly maximized, and would there be no diminishing returns? Of course not, but neither would Haliburton.

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.

No, that was entirely what made him special. It wouldn't have mattered if Harden was a guard, a forward, or a center, if he had put up 35ppg on great efficiency because he got to the line a ton, despite not being a great shooter, it wouldn't have mattered. Sure, the exact execution would have looked different if he was a center putting up numbers like that instead of a guard, but that's not the point.

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.

How did I neglect context? I stated an opinion, then used stats and evidence to back those claims up. It wasn't necessary to discuss every possible context of every piece of evidence I was bringing up. As far as the context I did provide, I specifically cited the example of DeAndre Jordan, someone who does have a high FG%/efficiency, but who's context/situation was different. This was a 3-4 paragraph post, not a dissertation. If there's some context that's relevant about why the stats I pointed out don't make sense, then bring those examples up. Instead, you simply complain about a lack of context (which I did provide), but fail to cite any examples.

That would be like me just randomly saying your post lacks any discussion about something random like I don't know, foul rates or something. What would it matter if I don't point out why foul rates are pertinent to the discussion at hand and cite an example or two? It wouldn't. And that's the point -- you keep going on about context, and I agree, context for stats is always important, but you don't provide any examples of what context my post is lacking or why it's relevant to the discussion about how these players mesh. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but you repeatedly make assertions about things and then never follow up with a point about why the assertion matters or how they're relevant, throughout your post.

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.

This is actually a relevant point -- with an example and evidence to back up your point! However, I will point out the lacking context of your cited example: on/off stats are *notoriously* noisy with extremely high variance, particularly derived on/off stats like offensiev rating. Additionally, at least according to 82games, the numbers are slightly different from what you cited for this year: 109.6 on/111.2 off, which would imply a negative 1.6 difference, however, he's still a +6.3 in net on/off rating, because defensively he's a +7.9 in on/off defensive rating. Now, either every other advanced stat is wrong, and actually Sabonis is a god on defense, or, more likely, there's some other factors at work -- perhaps the garbage time units play at a higher pace, for example. That would lead to more fast breaks, which would lead to increased efficiency for both sides, which would explain why a) offensively they're more efficient with him not on the floor, and b) why the defensive efficiency drops so badly with him off the floor. Additionally, you mentioned he had the worst drop on the team -- well, Sabonis also plays the most minutes on the team, which would imply he plays the least minutes in garbage time, which would also tend to support my hypothesis. If you have any more examples/stats that are relevant to this particular discussion however, I would be interested.

[John Murdoch]

[Diop]

Some of you guys spend way to much time on here judging by the massive walls of texts

[Blazing_royale]

I don't know what y'all smoking but bigs like Sabonis don't grow on trees and he's proven to be at least a star and still young. There's plenty of good guards around the league. Kings won this trade

[HotelVitale]

I don't know what y'all smoking but bigs like Sabonis don't grow on trees and he's proven to be at least a star and still young. There's plenty of good guards around the league. Kings won this trade

Could go either way, and Kings did give up the single most valued asset (and a fan mega-favorite) so that's tough. But yeah it's wide open and this could very easily be a Kings win when we judge it in a few years.

[DroseReturnChi]

I don't know what y'all smoking but bigs like Sabonis don't grow on trees and he's proven to be at least a star and still young. There's plenty of good guards around the league. Kings won this trade

its just so dumb sabonis is suddeny viewed as traditonal big when he is one of two guys that average over 18/10/5 other guy jokic.
a guy like hali is actually way more common than a big like sabonis and when he gets a 3pt attached he is going to be untouchable.
this guy is literally cheaper version of jokic 30 teams can make use of him. sabonis is older but i think he as just as much potential as a 19yr old guy he hasnt even scratched the surface yet reminds me of jokic's early yrs.

[xBulletproof]

Lol I didn't even notice the 2 Jeremy Lambs in the initial tweet. I just saw Sobonis for Hali

I hated Lamb's time in Indy soooo much. We got to trade him twice! LOL.

He shoots good 1 game out of 5 games, you'll learn to hate him also, Sacramento.

I liked Lamb before the gross knee injury. But he struggled after that. He just wasn't the same.

[xBulletproof]

I don't know what y'all smoking but bigs like Sabonis don't grow on trees and he's proven to be at least a star and still young. There's plenty of good guards around the league. Kings won this trade

its just so dumb sabonis is suddeny viewed as a traditonal big when he is one of two bigs over 15/8/5.
a guy like hali is actually way more common than a big like sabonis and when he gets a 3pt attached he is going to be untouchable.
this guy is literally cheaper version of jokic 30 teams can make use of him. sabonis is older but i think he as just as much potential as a 19yr old guy he hasnt even scratched the surface yet reminds me of jokic's early yrs.

I think that ship sailed. He was asked to be a stretch PF in his rookie year at OKC, shot 32%. 5 years to today, he's shooting the same volume of threes and is shooting ... you guessed it, 32%.

I don't want you to think they're well guarded 3's either. Like, teams leave him wide open to take the shots and he's shooting 32%. I think if he was capable he would have figured it out by now. Who knows, maybe a coach can change his shot and he improves but that would be a remote chance.

[HotelVitale]

I don't know what y'all smoking but bigs like Sabonis don't grow on trees and he's proven to be at least a star and still young. There's plenty of good guards around the league. Kings won this trade

its just so dumb sabonis is suddeny viewed as a traditonal big when he is one of two bigs over 15/8/5.
a guy like hali is actually way more common than a big like sabonis and when he gets a 3pt attached he is going to be untouchable. this guy is literally cheaper version of jokic 30 teams can make use of him. sabonis is older but i think he as just as much potential as a 19yr old guy he hasnt even scratched the surface yet reminds me of jokic's early yrs.

I think that ship sailed. He was asked to be a stretch PF in his rookie year at OKC, shot 32%. 5 years to today, he's shooting the same volume of threes and is shooting ... you guessed it, 32%. I don't want you to think they're well guarded 3's either. Like, teams leave him wide open to take the shots and he's shooting 32%. I think if he was capable he would have figured it out by now. Who knows, maybe a coach can change his shot and he improves but that would be a remote chance.

I agree he's an awkward 3pt shooter but he only really started shooting 3s year before last, before that he was at 1 attempt or fewer per game. He's been at 32% the last two years on that bigger volume and, while he might be stuck there a) just ticking that up a few % points to like 35% sounds pretty sweet and b) 32% is still passable even if not, if the point is just to have him be capable of spacing the floor when needed. Wouldn't count on that being a big weapon of his ever though.

[xBulletproof]

its just so dumb sabonis is suddeny viewed as a traditonal big when he is one of two bigs over 15/8/5.
a guy like hali is actually way more common than a big like sabonis and when he gets a 3pt attached he is going to be untouchable. this guy is literally cheaper version of jokic 30 teams can make use of him. sabonis is older but i think he as just as much potential as a 19yr old guy he hasnt even scratched the surface yet reminds me of jokic's early yrs.

I think that ship sailed. He was asked to be a stretch PF in his rookie year at OKC, shot 32%. 5 years to today, he's shooting the same volume of threes and is shooting ... you guessed it, 32%. I don't want you to think they're well guarded 3's either. Like, teams leave him wide open to take the shots and he's shooting 32%. I think if he was capable he would have figured it out by now. Who knows, maybe a coach can change his shot and he improves but that would be a remote chance.

I agree he's an awkward 3pt shooter but he only really started shooting 3s year before last, before that he was at 1 attempt or fewer per game. He's been at 32% the last two years on that bigger volume and, while he might be stuck there a) just ticking that up a few % points to like 35% sounds pretty sweet and b) 32% is still passable even if not, if the point is just to have him be capable of spacing the floor when needed. Wouldn't count on that being a big weapon of his ever though.

I'd agree with you if there was any improvement from his rookie year when he played stretch PF for OKC. And he's actually shooting worse this year from 10-16 feet, and 16 feet to the 3 point line. There just hasn't been improvement anywhere there.

[turnaroundJ]

welp so far so good

[DroseReturnChi]

yep absolute robbery by kings. hope pacers doesnt cancel for failing physical.
didnt even realize sabonis was playing he put up some monster numbers. and justin holiday is a superior player to hield.
only 1 game but beating an elite wolves give a lot of hope.

[Sothron]

Sabonis straight up beasted in his first Kings game. I told you Kings fans you weren't getting robbed.

[HotelVitale]

I think that ship sailed. He was asked to be a stretch PF in his rookie year at OKC, shot 32%. 5 years to today, he's shooting the same volume of threes and is shooting ... you guessed it, 32%. I don't want you to think they're well guarded 3's either. Like, teams leave him wide open to take the shots and he's shooting 32%. I think if he was capable he would have figured it out by now. Who knows, maybe a coach can change his shot and he improves but that would be a remote chance.

I agree he's an awkward 3pt shooter but he only really started shooting 3s year before last, before that he was at 1 attempt or fewer per game. He's been at 32% the last two years on that bigger volume and, while he might be stuck there a) just ticking that up a few % points to like 35% sounds pretty sweet and b) 32% is still passable even if not, if the point is just to have him be capable of spacing the floor when needed. Wouldn't count on that being a big weapon of his ever though.

I'd agree with you if there was any improvement from his rookie year when he played stretch PF for OKC. And he's actually shooting worse this year from 10-16 feet, and 16 feet to the 3 point line. There just hasn't been improvement anywhere there.

I think we're both saying about the same thing so we can probably let it lie, but I'm not convinced by the rookie year stuff you keep bringing up. It was a long time ago to begin with, but more importantly he shot 39% overall from the field and 66% from the stripe that year--compared with 55ish% from the field and 74ish% from the strip since then. So he was clearly having a rough transition that he quickly figured out, doesn't feel fair to measure his current shooting by that. (Also it looks like this year's midrange #'s are based on super low volume--18 total shots 15 ft to 3--so seems like he's almost cut the midragne entirely out in favor of 3s).

Overall, I dunno, his FT stroke and some of his midrange #s some seasons are pretty okay so I could see him becoming passable on open jumpers. I also don't think it'll ever be a big thing for him (and it shouldn't have to be if he gets to play to his strengths in SAC).

[Pointgod]

I don't mind it for the Kings. They get Sabonis, who is on a good 20m per year contract until 2024. And people are overrating Haliburton on here, it's not like he's been setting the league on fire with his 14 ppg.

Exactly, it's kind of ridiculous how much people in general are out there guaranteeing he's going to be a star or something, and going to have a permanent improvement curve, whereas the guy who's really accomplished something and really been a star for the last two seasons(before turning 25) is exactly what it is.

I’m a big fan of Haliburton, but he’s always been a high floor guy, not a high ceiling player. Haliburton was never projected to be a superstar, hell you don’t have to look far for the type of player Haliburton will become, Malcolm Brogdan. I didn’t like the trade for the Kings because they should have tried to move Fox and Sabonis is a bit overrated as an allstar, but Sabonis is pretty legit which he showed tonight.