It seemed like Buddy Hield was about to be a Los Angeles Laker. Everyone, from the Kings front office, to league insiders, to Buddy himself, thought the trade was about to be completed. The Lakers made a last-second pivot to acquire Russell Westbrook instead.
Since then, Buddy and the Kings have been in a strange sort of limbo. It has appeared that Buddy would rather be elsewhere, though Buddy has stayed professional and silent (at least publicly) on the matter. From the failed trade, we can surmise that the many reports of the Kings shopping Buddy were correct.
So how much longer will Buddy be a King?
It first seemed like he’d be gone at last season’s trade deadline. Then it seemed like he’d be gone by the draft. Now it seems like that timeline may have been pushed back again.
A trade could still happen before the season begins, but it would no longer surprise me if Buddy starts the year in Sacramento.
The concern then becomes what happens to Buddy’s trade value. Buddy wants to start, we all know that, but the Kings probably had plans to see more of Fox and Haliburton starting together. Do the Kings risk Buddy’s trade value if he’s unhappy coming off the bench? Do the Kings continue to start Buddy over Haliburton at the short-term expense of the backcourt of the future?
Barring a late Ben Simmons trade, it’s hard to see a trade where Buddy moves before training camp. It seems Buddy will be a King for at least a little while longer.
The deals for Buddy are harder to find because he does only one thing. Any deal will require a team that needs his specific skill.
Buddy will be a King for a while.
Buddy watch: 212 games more, and he would become the all-time Sacramento King in games played. Dude doesn’t miss many games, so if he stayed here 3 more seasons he could pass Jason Thompson’s glorious mark. If we made the playoffs, that’d add even more games, of course.
Keeping him around is not bad thing as long as they use him correctly.
“as long as they use him correctly”, and Buddy doesn’t run to the media b/c he’s unhappy with how he is being used.
There’s plenty of teams that could use Buddy’s shooting, shooting is always at a premium. Besides the Lakers deal, Monte simply hasn’t received an offer he has liked. I’m guessing something transpires pre trade deadline.
There’s no rush to trade any of the 3 B’s.
If the right trade comes along, Monte will pull the trigger.
Five more 3-pointers and Buddy becomes the all-time leader in that category for this franchise.
His 3 point percentage was around 43% when Joerger was the coach. Walton got him down to 39%. I’d love to see Buddy again with a non-Walton coach. Unless he gets traded to the L*kers. Then I’d love to see Buddy being coached by Walton.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/leaders_career.html
Watch, when Buddy hits 1070 made three’s, Monte will trade him.
“Ha! No franchise record breaking for you, Buddy!”
Buddy’s 3P volume also went up and that’s an ok trade-off – I would rather have Buddy be a 39% shooter on 10 attempts per game than a 43% shooter on 8 attempts. I’m more concerned that his ok-ish scoring at the rim has become outright dismal more recently – it would be nice if a 90% FT shooter could actually generate some FTs in the clutch…
Have to dribble the ball to get to the rim. More than two dribbles and he forgets what to do.
Good call!
I wouldn’t.
2018-19: 278 for 651 on threes (.427)
2020-21: 282 for 721 on threes (.391)
The difference is 4 for 70 or 5.7% on threes. The extra volume is entirely wasted shots.
Well, if we don’t get Ben Simmons, then it’s kinda like we still got Ben Simmons!
I don’t think you can really look at it like that, even though it would be great if he hit 40%+.
If Buddy took a 3 on every Kings possession (103 a game) and hit at a 39% clip, that would equal 120 pts a game. The team True Shooting % would be 58.25%, or good for 8th best in the league.
That obviously isn’t how basketball is played (Diminishing returns at some point if tired), but in short, any randomly selected Buddy Hield 3 pointer from a data set, should be deemed a good shot statistically over the long run.
He is an elite shooter (I know you hate the term for him) when you combine volume and %. Only players who averaged 9+ attempts a game and 39% are Steph and Lillard. Nobody is telling them to shoot less and be more selective and that’s because statistically anytime they shoot it’s a good shot over the long haul.
The difference is they obviously have a much more diverse game to go with that shooting.
I suppose you could look at it like even a bad Buddy Hield shot is better than a shot from anyone else on the team, and that’s not technically wrong if you average it across every shot he takes. I’d still rather see Buddy actually coached out there and put in a position to maximize his talents. Cutting out the worst 20% of his shots, even if someone else is taking them, may make the team better, not worse, because those bad shots probably aren’t actually 40% on average.
100% agree with that…I actually like when he pulls the midrange and think he is more effective when there is that threat. Didn’t look up any numbers on midrange though.
But if he repeats % and volume this year, I think it’s hard to find major fault with that part of his game, even if it would be great to be back to the all world levels of a couple years ago. Now the rest of his game…
Correction: Just looked at midrange. He’s terrible at it 37%. That’s why the eye test can suck sometimes 🙂 Just seems easy to me when he does it.
But he does shoot 45% on all corner 3’s. Only 38% above the break. Shoots 1.5 3’s a game from corners, vs 8.5 above break.
Seems like a coaching strategy flaw or poor execution if that is in plan.
Is the asterisk for Mitch Richmond there because of the 200 or so would be threes with his toe on the line?
I don’t think he gets moved until a team gets seriously desperate for shooting. My shortlist of teams that will come knocking by the deadline are: Pels, Lakers, 76ers, Nuggets, Knicks.
If I had to guess, it will be Pels for Hart and Satoransky. Nothing spectacular but clears space.
I agree, it’s most likely the Pels that come knocking, Griffin has made some perplexing moves this offseason, so I can see him trading for Buddy. It makes too much sense to create operating room for Zion by surrounding him with shooters. I’m surprised we haven’t at least heard Buddy to Pels rumors the last year. I’d want salary filler and a first round pick.
The Nuggets with Buddy and Murray playing off Joker would be deadly on O, but horrible on D. I actually think Barnes would be a nice fit in Denver playing up front with Joker and Gordon.
Yeah, I don’t think Buddy is much of a commodity. The almost deal with the Lakers, which to me was basically a salary dump, is pretty strong evidence of that. The Kings front office internal player valuation/willingness/ability to make moves remains a question for me. I would be surprised to see Buddy moved before the deadline, and at this point, I won’t be surprised if the team continues to pretty much stand pat even then.
In the modern game, every team is desperate for shooting. I don’t care if we’re talking about the Golden State Warriors, do you believe that they wouldn’t love to have another guy in the stable that can make 40% of his threes on high volume?
Oh, I agree, but it is his contract that is prohibitive. That is why I used the term desperate.
Wish I wasn’t on my tablet, but look at Buddy’s numbers, Joe Harris’ numbers, Duncan Robinson’s numbers, Davis Bertan’s numbers among others. Evan Fournier, too, for that matter. Also look at what they’re being paid.
Buddy’s contract, and production, is in line with all those guys, and I think his rep of being unproductive is largely borne out of the fact that he isn’t a great value to contract guy. If we’re being honest, very few players are.
Buddy isn’t untradeable. I didn’t love the Kuzma deal, but if that isn’t proof that there are teams thinking about Buddy now, what is?
None of those guys are making near what Buddy is.
Buddy is at $22.5M. The next highest is Harris at $17.4M followed by Fournier at 17.1M Bertans at $16M, then Robinson at 15.5M. Fournier and Robinson signed this year. Their contracts are the market rate for elite 3pt shooting.
Heh, Hield makes 29% more in salary than Harris, and in two fewer seasons in the league has made nearly 39% more threes than Harris.
If the other contracts which you cite are the going rate for elite three-point shooters, that would seem to indicate that Hield is still underpaid, or the others are overpaid.
Volume isn’t the be-all, end-all stat, but on 41% makes? These other guys aren’t in Hield’s class.
If he enjoyed being a super sixth man and a heat-check spot-up shooter, he’d be a very valuable part of team. Buddy, unfortunately, has never been actually coached and, therefore, has become a turnover machine because he thinks he’s an integral offensive playmaker.
I think he’d instantly become a different player with the Spurs – and his value would skyrocket.
Surprisingly the last time he was actually coached, the FO gave that coach the boot.
Sorry, but with what Buddy gets paid, and what he brings to the table, I’m tired of caring if Buddy is unhappy being a sixth man.
Honestly, I think playing Buddy as a small 3 is fine. He’s gonna suck on defense regardless of who’s in front of him so may as well stick him at the soft spot in the starting rotation. His spacing alongside Hali and Barnes will open things up for Fox. Concurrently, I’ve also come around to the idea of trading Fox for Simmons + Thybulle/Springer/Milton/Joe & Reed, in which case, Hield and Bagley almost become incredibly good complements to the reconstructed roster. Ex:
Simmons Mitchell
Hali Davis Ramsey
Buddy Milton Harkless
Barnes Bagley Metu Thompson
Holmes Len Jones.
Those are pretty well balanced first and second units, and both make Bagley and Hield into first or second scoring options next to a set of versatile defenders and playmakers. Could theoretically optimize all of our pieces. Regardless, i suspect with or without Simmons that Hield will be around much longer than we all thought (and maybe it’s not a bad thing).
Buddy is a specialist with flaws and a bad contract ! Likely trade will bring back something similar but hopefully a better fit !
If the Buddy for Kuzma and Harrell near miss is any indication. I think the best we can hope for is to break his contract into a couple smaller more movable or expiring deals, and that is about it.
He’s on the team until the trade deadline this year or just before that.
Let’s step back and look at the big picture. Why does Buddy have to be moved? Because McGenius picked two straight guards in the lottery. Why is he overpriced for other teams? Because McGenius’s predecessor projected him as a starting guard for the next four years, which McGenius obviously does not. He’s an elite 3 point shooter who’s weak on defense. So McGenius is only a McGenius if he picks a wing who can switch assignments with Buddy, or if he trades him. Otherwise he’s not a McGenius at all, he’s just a guy who has two guards making $48 million and two draft lottery guards splitting minutes with them. This guy has done nothing.
Terrible analysis. Buddy does not have to be moved directly due to the GM picking Off Night and Ty. Those moves were prompted in part because of the prolonged defeciencies and lack of development by Buddy, let us count the ways:
> poor to average handles
> poor shot discernment (incredible # of contested low percentage 3s)
> the matador defense
> the pudgy bloated physique that slowed his ability to get to his spots like before
> the immaturity and sniping at coach and teammates
> the inability to get to the free throw line
Add it up and you have a negative defender and a high volume jacker who cannot score in a 3D manner, more like 1.5D, that is, from behind the arc, and sometimes off of 1-2 dribbles when forced off the line, and as long as he does not overdribble or try to attack the rim.
Citing Buddy’s 3 point shooting is a also a little suspect and dubious when ANYONE paying attention could have noticed Buddy often would shoot the team out of games then get hot when the team was down 20 points.
This is who he was (is) as a player, and in addition, he saved his WORST basketball when we got a whiff of the playoffs towards the end of the last 3 seasons. He’s been anti-clutch. Why would NOT our GM look to supplant him, with more well-rounded and complete players?
Buddy as a 6th man has some appeal, if he is accepting and embracing of the role, going against lesser talents, playing with Ty, AND if he plays with a LEANER phyqsique closer to where he ended the season.
These are the prerequisites and conditions for Buddy to stick around and potentially fluorish in lieu of a trade for Simmons, who despite the aforementioned issues, PHI holds in covetous regard, per Sean Cunningham.
Your thought process is illogicial and frankly ass backwards because you are coming from the false presumption that the guard crunch was avoidable if only the GM would have allowed a flawed and loser player, arguably Bottom 5 of ALL SGs last year, free reign or dumped for a bag of chips
And the culpability for Buddy’s strugles cannot exclusively be laid at the feet of the coach, though he is deserving to a degree for not reining in Buddy worst and lazy impulses, quick shots and missed assignments, holding him more accountable for his poor and losing ways.
Perhaps this experience will finally open the coaches eyes and he must alter his approach with said player or coach his last season in the NBA.
Simultaneous to this the GM does not want to give away Buddy for pennies on the dollar. He still has an elite skill which is far more than can be said for Bust Bagley.
Anytime a current or former KHTK employee objectively speaks about Buddy’s shortcomings and/or how his contract impacts his trade value … 4 times out of 5 … they reflexively follow with “his contact does go down every year.”
Four facts shape my outlook for Buddy:
Otherwise, what’s not to love
Or, if he remains a King, will he use the rest of the offseason to figure out how to get more open looks in the 5-out offense, when and how to cut back door, where he can do give and go’s similar to what he did with Cauley-Stein, and not have another slow start to the season.
Unless Dame decides to force a trade, Hield is, by far, the best volume shooter potentially available in the NBA. Comments like “he only does one thing” conveniently ignore that the thing that he does well, he does on massive volume.
There are more players than ever above or around 40% from three, but other than Curry, Harden & Lillard (all Hall of Fame locks), there’s really no one else in the conversation about with whom a team would be comfortable launching ten bombs a game.
I’m pleased that Hield is being properly valued by the front office, since there’s little doubt that the other twenty-nine teams are doing the same.
Go eat your bag of chips.
Ty shot 41% to Buddy’s 39% on 5 attempts per game. Better accuracy on good volume. And the difference is Ty settles only for clean and uncontested 3s where Buddy will launch with a defender in his face and 6 inches of separation. Buddy also would get hot when he shot the team out of the game and we were down by 15-20 points. How many times did he go on a run when we were being blown out and the game was virtually over?
10 3s per game is not a statistic to be proud of. I harped on this all last year. That amounts to 73% of his shots from behind the arc. The best three point shooter, ever, Steph Curry , shot 59% of his shots from behind the arc las year, and 50% on his career. And a more natural distribution of shots is healthy even for a superior marksmen because you are keeping the defenders off balance and using your space creating abilities to get higher percentge looks for self or teammates.
If Buddy wants to resurrect his career, he needs to find a better shot balance, and do more to get open, instead of settling for so many contested 3s, thinking about the clause in his contract that earns him a bonus for certain 3-point benchmarks. He also needs to come into camp LEANER and FASTER like he was the season prior to receving his 90M contract. That was a player who could keep defenses off balance and who could sprint out in transition, lead the league in distance traveled per game. This player has been missing since he bulked up and tried to become a SG/SF.
I would suggest that by not factoring in who Hield’s coach was during his first two years in Sacramento, compared to who it is now, you’re missing the larger issue.
Of course, if less-than-ideal shots could be eliminated, Hield’s numbers would improve, as would his relative value, which, despite what many Kings fans insist, is still quite high. When you factor in that he’s one of the better rebounding guards in the league, and has made significant progress with his assist numbers, the idea that his career needs resurrecting is a massively hyperbolic overreach.
Obviously, he is never going to be confused with a point guard, but in maintaining very good percentages from distance on high volume, while improving other aspects of his game, he remains an asset, whether in Sacramento, or as part of a transaction.
I do agree with you that Hield might do better with less muscle on his frame, but his work ethic is beyond reproach, and given that he simply doesn’t miss games, I’m less inclined to insist that his regimen is an issue. With Walton’s heavy reliance on playing him out of position at the wing instead of as an actual shooting guard, maintaining that extra muscle in defending larger players probably makes sense. I don’t know if he’ll ever be an average defender, but I do think that his effort has been better. It takes an entire team to become the second-worst defensive team in history. Place Hield on even an average defensive squad, and many of his problems become significantly muted.
And forgive me for pointing out that while taking ten three-pointers per game isn’t something to be proud of, making over four of them for your entire career most certainly is.
Both of you are sort of saying the same thing. Even Hield complained about not getting open looks in the new 5 out offense. That 39% should go back up to 43% if Buddy plays smarter.
Okay, but he still likes to dribble off his foot a la Ollie from Hoosiers in seemingly every big moment this team gets.
Hence, “obviously, he’s never going to confused with a point guard.”
And is it just me, or should someone finally rescore Hoosiers with an orchestra instead of the terrible synthesizers that they originally used? The last time I watched the movie, I couldn’t believe how distracting it was.
I think it speaks more to BBIQ and delusion of skills than positional analysis or Luke’s use. But hey, I’ll sign your Hoosiers re-score petition if you organize it.
Sure, he does one thing really well, but does he do that well enough to offset what you lose from the multiple things he doesn’t do well or is mediocre at (basically everything other than 3 point shooting and being healthy)?
Also, and this is just me, I don’t like players who get caught up in the starter/off the bench dynamic and proceed to stew over the fact that they come off the bench, as if that’s some sort of insult. If it makes the team better for him to come off the bench, then so be it. He doesn’t have to like it, but he’d need to accept it and maintain the same effort level. And I’m not suggesting Buddy wouldn’t play as hard off the bench, but he certainly wouldn’t be thrilled about it.
I feel like volume 3pt shooting is the fools gold of the NBA. Taking 10 threes a game is not impressive. Taking and making shots within the flow of the offence is impressive. The types of shots taken are not represented in his 3pt% at all.
I’m not really sure.
Badge Legend