With the recent developments surrounding Ben Simmons and his desire to part ways with the Philadelphia 76ers, the Sacramento Kings have found themselves rumored as one of the teams that could possibly acquire Simmons in a trade. Despite this insight into the magnitude of deterioration of the relationship between Simmons and the 76ers, Jason Anderson of the Sacramento Bee has reported that Daryl Morey is still only interested in a trade with the Kings that includes either De’Aaron Fox or Tyrese Haliburton. Further, Sam Amick of The Athletic has reported that a deal between the 76ers and the Kings has reached a stalemate, as the Kings have made clear that neither Fox or Haliburton would be included in any potential trades for Ben Simmons.
It makes sense that both front offices are throwing out absolutes right now in efforts to get the most out of any potential deal. But as we’ve seen throughout the history of the NBA, things can quickly change and GMs can be forced to make the most of bad situations. In any potential deals between the 76ers and the Kings, it will all come down to who bends first. For the Kings, it would make sense that De’Aaron Fox is considered “off the table”, as he reached career-highs in points, 3-point makes, and free throw attempts last season. Working under that assumption of Fox not being an option, that leaves the question of whether Tyrese Haliburton has the same kind of absolute security on this Kings’ roster.
In his rookie season, Tyrese Haliburton averaged 13 points, 5.3 assists, and 1.3 steals on 30.1 minutes per game and placed third in Rookie of the Year voting after being the 12th pick in the draft. Along with his quantifiable stats, Tyrese also brings that intangible energy to his team that is invaluable. Simply put, Tyrese was the biggest steal in his draft class and has proven he can be an integral piece in Sacramento’s future success. Is getting Ben Simmons worth giving up Tyrese Haliburton? Is Simmons’ talent more valuable than Haliburton’s potential and team influence? For the Kings, in this moment, is acquiring talent more important than building culture?
This is the question that arose for me when thinking about a potential Ben Simmons trade that includes the loss of Tyrese Haliburton. While Simmons comes with undeniable talent, he also comes with questions surrounding how he will affect a team’s culture, given how deleterious his relationship with the 76ers has become. Haliburton, on the other hand, has already taken on a confident role in rebuilding a winning culture in Sacramento, and the only question that remains is how high his his on-court ceiling can rise.
Much like the chicken vs. the egg debate, I wonder what needs to happen first for a successful team – the talent or the culture? It’s hard to acquire talent outside of the draft without a winning culture, especially for a small market team. And it’s hard to build a winning culture without talent because, well, you don’t win that often. I see this potential Ben Simmons trade as a crossroads for the Kings – should they bet on the talent of Ben Simmons or the culture that Tyrese Haliburton can build?
Here’s my opinion: the Kings should bet on Tyrese Haliburton. I’m choosing culture. Right now, the Kings have talent – they may not have Ben Simmons-level talent yet, but they have a future All-Star in De’Aaron Fox, a young two-way player in Tyrese Haliburton, a versatile big in Richaun Holmes, and a defensive specialist in Davion Mitchell. At some point, the Kings have to cultivate the talent that they have and build a discernible winning culture that can later more easily attract some heavy-powered talent. As salty as it may taste to see Ben Simmons go to a different team, I think the payoff of keeping Tyrese Haliburton will be even sweeter.
It’s a talent driven league. If you don’t have top-end talent, you don’t have a chance.
Speaking of talent, we have an open spot on the unofficial TKH member Fantasy Basketball league.
Three player keeper league and you will take a roster that includes Kings’ legend Luka Doncic, and PG13, Jamal Murray, Klay, and Gordon Hayward.
Let me know if you are interested!
That’s one hell of a team to step into. It comes with arguably the top keeper, another fringe 1st round type, and a mid-round pick.
That’s probably a better position that I’m in after winning it last season.
BHE after typing that last sentence
Also, congratulations!
…would you be willing to work as GM of my favorite NBA team?
Can I try?
I don’t know. Is Ophelia cool with you playing?
I just need an email address to send the invite!
I’m changing my team name to Laertes.
Should I then change to Iago?
So I can play you all for fools.
Huh, is there something about Tenor gifs that make this more difficult?
Oh well.
/imagine Iago from Aladdin being funny.
I was thinking Othello, but . . . oh well.
I know. I was just redirecting. As a lit major, I was force fed plenty of Shakespeare in college. Too much IMO. I mean, I actually like him, but C’mon!
This being a fan site for the most woeful, miserable NBA team, perhaps we should be saying Welcome to the Monkey House.
Ophelia, after learning Vlade passed on Doncic
Vlade, I am Inigo Montoya .. you killed my draft choice, prepare to die .
Hot take: Keanu Reeves was the best Shakespearean actor ever!
Don John!
Someone else is interested too but you were 1st in time.
Please confirm that you are in and get me an email address. Otherwise, I will give the team to that member.
Thanks. I’ll pass.
Was it the Ophelia joke?
If so, I blame Pete D’Alessandro for my behavior.
Kinda. The fact I didn’t get it made me think maybe I’m not worthy.
I don’t even know Laertes…or Lago.
Someone must not have a merry wife in Windsor then.
I am ashamed…
Don’t worry. Most of the banter centers around not wearing pants.
A) I seriously hope that joke did not actually dissuade you.
And
B) I seriously hope this comment is a bit!
If you still have that opening, which website are you using and is it a live draft?
I’m betting on Tyrese as well. The talent gap between Tyrese and Simmons is something that may be bridged. Simmons has not developed at all from his rookie year. I think Tyrese will improve as his body gets stronger and he has more time in the league. The culture gap between the two is unlikely to be bridged as I don’t see Simmons suddenly changing his attitude with the Kings.
I think you’ve pretty much got it. Simmons really hasn’t gotten significantly better than when he came into the league. He’s half-a-decade into his career, with very little in the way of improvement, and that’s usually well past the point where someone can become competent at a skill like shooting, let alone above-average.
I’ve said that when their respective careers are over, I believe that Fox will have had the better of the two. Haliburton’s ceiling isn’t as high as Fox or Simmons, but I do think that he’ll eventually be so good on both sides of the ball, that his steadiness and reliability will make up some of the difference. And Tyrese is effing smart. Even when not playing point, I feel that he could be a floor general in the mode of a CP3, and I’m honestly not familiar enough with Simmons to know if he’s that type of player. My last impression being of him fron the Atlanta series, I’m comfortable calling him deferential, possibly to a fault.
And as others have pointed out, a culture change is simply impossible without getting a new head coach, ideally one whose last name isn’t the largest thing they’ve got going for them.
Is Simmons even done growing? I’m pretty sure he was drafted at 6’9. Lately I’m hearing he may be 6’11”?
He was already about as tall as point guards get. Is it possible to out-grow the position?
I’m on a plane to St. Barts right now with his personal physician, and will let you know after I’ve discussed it with him.
I hear he’s 25. I was thinking 23.
love Tyrese. He does everything to make a team better.
And I don’t see how Fox can work well with Simmons cause he can’t play off ball. I think that pairing would not work but Tyrese would be perfect next to Simmons.
Kings need to rebuild be getting rid of the owner obstruction.
If you’re choosing culture, then just dump Luke.
Or give him an elbow.
Just don’t go to his hotel room!
Exactly. It’s all a Vivek clusterfuck. Shoulda been rebuilding starting last year.
Its simple, obvious, and so completely ignored by ownership. I don’t get it.
Seems that winning teams have winning culture and losing teams have losing culture ! The consistent difference relates to overall talent in a star driven, protected league !
Agreed. Let’s offload our players who don’t appear to want to contribute to the culture. Hield, Bagley hopefully find a happy new home in Philly. And probably a couple of first round picks which philly trades for someone more seasoned.
Has joined the chat…
The issue is talent is more scarce than “culture.” Very few players in the league can provide Simmons level talent. Plenty of players in the league can provide Haliburton type intangibles.
That said, it’s a discussion built on a bit of a false dichotomy. Teams need both and they aren’t mutually exclusive. I think it’s also silly to suggest Simmons would inevitably undermine some burgeoning Kings culture or pin the Sixers situation solely on him. Honestly, I think the narrative on Simmons has gotten ridiculously out of control. He’s become an easy and effective scapegoat for a team limited at least as much by roster construction and coaching as is has by the holes in Simmons’ game.
Personally, I don’t want to give up Haliburton. I’m a huge fan. I’m on record saying I’d rather build around Haliburton than Fox for multiple reasons from the intangibles mentioned in the article to versatility and contract status.
I certainly understand not wanting to trade for Simmons. I understand not wanting to trade away Fox or Haliburton. I think those are all valid stances. I just don’t think arguments that A) suggest Simmons is any thing less than an exceptional basketball player or B) Simmons is a culture destroyer that is single-handedly holding his team back carry a whole lot of weight.
On another note, we seem to also carry this constant contradiction where our team isn’t good, but our players (with any trade value at all) are too good to trade away. At some point the Kings are going to have to make a significant move. It doesn’t have to be Simmons. It doesn’t have to be Siakam. It doesn’t have to be trading Fox away. But it’s going to be something we’re uncomfortable giving up. There is going to be risk involved.
No one has really brought up how Philly was almost ready to turn and fall upon Embiid at this time last year. Remember when he took a playoff game off with a tummy ache? Philly is their own worst enemy. They prey upon their own. They were discussing whether Embiid would ever be the right partner for Ben Simmons. Let’s not drink their Kool-Aid. Let the knee jerk reaction be their undoing to our advantage, but don’t let a good opportunity get away ‘cuz the consensus on Twitter is he’s not worth Buddy/Barnes and a 1st rounder, or two. He is!
I understand letting it play-out before throwing the bank. I would not part with Hali. I’d try to keep Barnes. I wouldn’t give Morey equal value (Fox), and I think Monte knows the hate against Ben is unwarranted. People love to throw stones.
This happens to a lesser degree here. We saw it with Barnes (I predicted his value would buoy), and we’re seeing it with Bagley and Buddy. I have said I want them traded, and I understand their issues, but I hope I’m not as guilty of the Hate. Buddy is a good player who’s value is slowly catching up to his descending contract. Bagley is a good prospect who hasn’t met his potential mostly due to injuries and the long shadow of Luka hanging over his career. Both are valuable pieces used appropriately in the right system. Monte does have some assets to work with.
Also Morey isn’t likely to trade Ben in the East, or to a contender. That may be where Monte’s biggest advantage lies.
Barring injury, Bagley won’t make a 9-player rotation in Sacramento this year. And Hield might lose minutes to TD this year.
I could also see both of those things being true.
Agreed on all points. I too have been saying if it came down trading one of Hali or Fox in order to land Simmons, I keep Hali everyday of the week. There are so many reasons for this. You give up few pieces, Hali’s contract is excellent, Hali is the better on the court paring with Simmons, and I firmly believe Fox and Simmons cannot share the court together.
It would take Hali and Buddy and picks to get Simmons, so who then spaces the floor? With Fox, Simmons, and Holmes sharing the court, teams would just pack the paint and dare the Kings to shoot. I’d prefer to surround Simmons with shooters like Hali and Buddy.
In my opinion to build a winning culture and add talent at the same time with a move like that. This ain’t rocket surgery.
Apparently, Fox can’t share the court with anyone, including Luka Doncic. It’s a theory that has served the franchise very well over the past few years.
Not the same. Vlade didn’t want to take the ball out of Fox’s hands. I feel Simmons and Fox together create for horrible spacing and shooting.
It COULD work. Though Holmes certainly isn’t an ideal fit in that scenario and you really need someone like Hali next to Fox. Fox, Hali, Barnes, Simmons, [3-and-D Center] makes sense in general. The question, as everyone is asking, is how you get Simmons without giving up Fox or Hali.
Exactly.
Answer: Wait.
Do you think Simmons is worth 4/170? Do you think Simmons is worth gutting your team for? Do you think Simmons makes you a championship contender?
My answer is ‘no’ to all of those questions. This isn’t a Chris Webber deal whatsoever, Simmons isn’t on that level of player.
To me the question at this point is whether or not Minnesota gets desperate and tries to convince themselves a stupid deal is worth Ben Simmons. That’s what i think is holding this trade up if I had to guess (could be wrong).
There’s no point in acquiring Ben Simmons if you are giving up De’Aaron Fox or Tyrese Haliburton IMO. If you are, you might as well not bother in acquiring Simmons because you won’t have that much talent to make acquiring Simmons worthwhile in the first place. And you certainly won’t have the mechanisms in play to win games at a higher rate than what the Kings are doing now. If you think the noise is loud with Simmons and Rich Paul now, just wait until you acquire Ben Simmons to play on a team that will just be running in place because they acquiesced to the public narrative that Ben Simmons is a franchise player and had to do what it takes to get him.
Hoo buddy. That would be some next level of stoopid doo doo dumb. Morey has probably been hoping, if I had to guess, that he could get 3 FRP’s outta the Wolves plus Jaden McDaniels and DeAngelo Russell (who would have to be included to make the deal work). 22,002,624 is the bonus for Simmons over 4 seasons so you’re looking at 5,500,656 added to a 33,003,936 salary for a 38,904,592 with that 15% trade bonus kicking in. (Ouch.) Remember this part too: These bonuses are only paid by the team trading the player in the first season. After that, you’re on the hook for the rest of it. That matters BHE! We talk about this stuff all the time one way or another!
Assuming you take Russell out of the equation, you’re talking about Malik Beasley, Patrick Beverly (not sure when the day to trade Beverly actually is at this point other than it’s sometime in late October if you take it at the 60 day marker) and Jaden McDaniels plus the 3 FRP’s. Assuming Taurean Prince is an acceptable inclusion than I can see him instead of Beverly. It’s almost important to note that the trade salary and actual salary of Simmons is different due to that bonus. And that salary will include a big bump in year two after acquiring him that you (the team acquiring Simmons) will have to pay.
There’s a lot of moving parts here not the least of which is money. Unless Minnesota agrees to give away a lot of picks unprotected (3 maybe whittle it down to 2), make the money work, and probably agree to Simmons’ trade bonus, I don’t see that deal happening. And that’s a lot of money on a lot of fronts.
Barnes OTOH has 2 years left with a player opt out (which he’s likely to exercise) and Bagley is an expiring contract either way. And if you’re the Kings you add at least one unprotected first rounder and a lightly protected 1st rounder down the line, I don’t know that money doesn’t play as big a factor as anything else in this deal. Talent is important, but spending money to spend it isn’t useful either.
The optics of this is what’s creating the notion that you have to get Haliburton or Fox in a Simmons trade. If you start stripping this deal down to it’s essence, you have a valuable player, though overpaid, and the competition to acquire him either has overpaid talent (Beasley) or dramatically overpay (3 FRP’s) to acquire Simmons.
The Kings have an advantage in having a veteran player who Doc Rivers can plug and play right now at the F spot in Harrison Barnes, a young player they can do whatever they want with in Marvin Bagley, and still have assets (2 FRP’s) to work with. At significantly less cost to Philly than what they would have to do with Minnesota. Taking on Beasley’s money makes that a tough road to hoe, and if this were Beasley vs Hield I could see that being a tough spot. But Barnes? That’s a different deal, and the fact that Philly could not only save significant money, retool their roster a tad with Barnes and re-align it a tad better in the interim around Embiid, AND still have plenty of ways to really go after Damian Lillard makes this very doable. It’s all really how you sell the trade ultimately to your ownership and your fanbase.
Remember how Daryl Morey got James Harden in the first place. Look at the players he acquired when getting Harden. Look at the assets he acquired to get Harden. Multiple trades (Kevin Martin, the FRP from Toronto in the Kyle Lowery trade) and Jeremy Lamb (the FRP from a year prior) were ultimately what got that deal done. Yes, Adams became a major player for OKC as it turned out down the line.
History tends to repeat itself, Simmons is a talented, flawed and overpaid player. You don’t trade your best assets (Fox, Haliburton, in that order) for a player like Simmons to improve yourself. You just don’t.
It’s a well reasoned post, as I expected. I’ll keep the answer simple.
Roughly. Sure.
No. Though I’m not suggesting gutting the team.
No. Of course, neither does not trading for Simmons.
This quote implies Fox or Haliburton aren’t flawed players. Fox isn’t that great at the three and is below average from the free throw line. HalibuRton has his share of flaws too.
Simmons does certain things better than Fox like defense, finishing at the rim or rebounding and has size. Fox is a better athlete and probably has better passing ability.
The narrative is Simmons will not improve by formulating a jump shot. The narrative is Fox can improve his jump shot therefore Fox > Simmons.
I would be willing to look over Simmons’ flaw in his jump shot for his elite defense. THAT aspect of his game is what excites me about adding him to the Kings.
The flaw in his jump shot was magnified since it was the playoffs and he is considered one of the leaders of one of the best Eastern conference teams. Simmons is a complete player at all other aspects of his game other than his jump shot. If Simmons comes here, he doesn’t need to shoot jump shots of he was straight up traded for Fox. We have elite shooters in Buddy, Haliburton and Barnes.
To answer your questions, yes he is a max contract player. No we aren’t gutting our team by doing a straight Fox for Simmons swap. Yes, he does make the team a contender since he was one of the captions of a contender in the East.
No, it doesn’t. You implied that, but my point was, regardless of whether you agree, that acquiring Simmons isn’t a championship level move. Especially if you are taking one of the two most valuable players off the Kings roster by acquiring Simmons in the first place.
Simmons, Fox and Haliburton are all seriously flawed players atm. Pairing them gives you a strong opportunity at winning 50 games provided health, but I highly doubt that’s a core of a championship team.
Excellent post Nate. Thanks. Laid out about as plainly and simple as you could make it and as good as I’ve read anywhere on the BB Interwebs
Appreciate ya BJ.
Sooo…
Simmons wouldn’t take the ball out of Fox’s hands? Because Simmons will be a shooting guard who can’t shoot, or 3 & D wing without the three?
The Kings have a fair amount of shooting available, and great players figure out how to work with one another.
Unless one of them refuses to shoot the ball. But maybe Simmons just needs a more talented teammate than Joel Embiid.
I don’t get it either. The whole point of acquiring Simmons is to pair him with Fox. To play uptempo, or fast, and not worry so much about how the fit in the halfcourt is. That’s where Fox really shines for this team more than he does in transition IMO. And Simmons/Fox were meant to play fast and create pressure and on opposing defense in transition. Pairing them makes it easier to play fast, not tougher.
Truth is, it’s going to take some work on Luke Walton’s part to optimize the pairing, and whether or not he can is really the tell-tale sign as to whether or not he can really coach in the NBA. I get the vast majority of people think Walton can’t tie his own shoes correctly let alone be a head coach in the NBA. But if you can’t figure out how to make a roster with a starting lineup of Fox-Haliburton-Hield-Simmons-Holmes, you’re not going to make it in the L.
To me it’s pretty simple.
Hot take: The Warriors would have gone 82-0 if it wasn’t for Luke Walton.
Shaddup Gonzo.
Finally. The truth is out. About time.
The best fastbreak teams in the league still only score 15-ish percent of the points on the break. To succeed, teams have to be able to score well in the half court.
And those points come off turnovers. You want fastbreaks, Mitchell, Hali, and Simmons is your line up.
And missed shots leading to grab-and-go rebounds/quick outlet passes. All of which Simmons excels at.
Regardless, the point being fast breaks aren’t built on having a bunch of fast runners. Heck, the best fast break team in the NBA this year was Memphis who basically trotted out Ja and a bunch of average-to-well-below-average athletes.
Building a team based on speed was a hugely flawed idea by V&V. Sure, it’s beautiful the 4-5 times a game it happens. But quickness and savvy are much more valuable assets on a 90′ x 50′ court filled with 7′ long men.
Yep. Speed of thought trumps speed of foot every time. Passes travel faster than any player can dribble.
or that any player can run.
One of the first and most persistent lessons I learned as a youngster from our coach.
Well transition is one of easiest way to generate points. That is the Bucks’ motto. They push in transition, even sacrificing efficiency for frequency. They still know how to execute in half court but the point is that the Bucks always look to run.
Memphis? You are mistaken. The Bucks run the most and the Kings is the most efficient.
You’re right. The places I pulled my stats from were mistaken. I rechecked at NBA.com. According to them the Bucks ran the most, the Kings were most efficient, but surprisingly the Wizards scored the most in transition (2nd in frequency and 5th in efficiency).
This I won’t argue. But…I think with Fox and Simmons you might be able to get that to 20% because of Fox’s speed and Simmons ability to grab it and go. Buddy playing fast and doing it well certainly doesn’t hurt matters (especially in SF matchups), and Holmes can rim run as well as anyone in the league atm. It’s about baseline to baseline more than anything.
There will be plenty of issues to solve in the halfcourt and that would have been true with or without Fox and Simmons as a pairing. Simmons isn’t a high USG guy (20ish the last two years) at all. Especially when you factor in Haliburton and Holmes who are both sub 20 USG guys themselves.
Buddy is a mid 20s USG guy and that might not even change if you were to keep Buddy as the SF.
You’re taking the shots Marvin Bagley got as a PF, and other shots that were distributed elsewhere throughout the Kings lineup, and you are essentially adding maybe a shot here or there into Simmons’ hands.
Shot distribution won’t be a problem with this team. The question is how to optimize lineup’s with Fox and Simmons because they are not a perfect pairing but you are going to need both on the court as much as possible.
Staggering lineup’s is mainly what I think is going to happen. Fox may play with Simmons to start the 1st qtr then Simmons and Hield sub out and you bring in Harkless and Metu say. Then maybe 6 minutes later you sub in Simmons for Metu and sub out Fox. Perhaps you sub Haliburton for Davis here as well. At some point Davion Mitchell will play. And so on and so forth.
But something like that. There’s a lot of combinations here to work through. But that’s how I envision it more or less.
Looks about right to me if you were to end up with Fox and Simmons on the same team.
Don’t read my next comment. I took a page from King4Ever’s book! (Or my old book, depending on whom you ask!)
You are going to need to be more specific. You published numerous books. 😉
Why be specific when I can just torture you with newer, more annoying and slightly less crass books instead?
Most of your posts on the old site could be considered books.
I saw that. And this is not a reflection on you. Based on your past comments I’m sure it’s well-reasoned and worthwhile. But I had to scroll past it.
It happens. But when I turn out right I’m going to quote it.
Although it’s hardly the best written thing ever. (This is a joke. It’s choppy and grammatically off in a few ways. I’m not writing books here. I don’t care that much.)
Yeah you have better chance to build a good half court offense with Fox than with Simmons. The Kings as is actually have a chance to be an elite offensive team.
We had a better half court offense two all-stars ago…
We actually have a decent one this year. Better than 76ers for sure
Tough to believe, but true.
How do you get a Fox, Hali, Buddy, Simmons, Holmes lineup? If you can keep all of Fox, Hali, and Buddy and still get Simmon then sure, I’m 100% on board, but I don’t see that works from a trade perspective.
Because it’s my opinion and I’m going to have it if I wanna!
Also, because I don’t think the Kings are trading Hali or Fox to get Simmons.
I agree with every point except: Fox and Simmons cannot share the court together.
“On another note, we seem to also carry this constant contradiction where our team isn’t good, but our players (with any trade value at all) are too good to trade away.”
Well said right here.
Yup. When the best player on the team for the past 3 years hasn’t led the team to 40 wins maybe he isn’t “too good to trade away.”
Here’s what it comes down to for me. If the Kings trade away the ancillary players (Buddy, Hali, Barnes, etc) and picks for Simmons, the Kings are left with Simmons, Fox, a depleted roster and no picks. But if the Kings trade away their best player in Fox, they keep their depth (Hali, Buddy, Hield, picks and still get Simmons.
Doc Rivers threw the first stone.
More like Roc Drivers! Amirite?
This is exactly where I’ve been, well said.
If the argument is Hali vs. Simmons (without considering the fiscal impact), there is no argument. Simmons is an absolute elite defender and possesses superior court vision and length. His game is far from perfect, but his is only 25 and the small sample size of the playoffs has sort or fun amok. And the beginning of the end in Philly was ignited by the incendiary comments of Embiid and Doc Rivers right after they got eliminated from the playoffs. The Sixers could have kept all of this in-house – it was not Simmons’ decision to air the dirty laundry in public.
Morey’s asking price is too high, and the Sixers may ultimately be forced downward, closer to the type of deal Minny had to take when Butler demanded out of Minny than to what Morey is asking for. But make no mistake, Ben Simmons is a minted NBA talent with still room to grow. I would bet the house* that Tyrese Haliburton (my absolute favorite player on this roster) never reaches Simmons level as a player.
*The house is not in my name.
I get and support the culture thing, but culture means little if it is lacking in high-end NBA talent. Ben Simmons provides high-end NBA talent. The asking price for him might wind up being too high, but Simmons > Hali when all things are considered, in my opinion.
On a side note, Doc sure is doing a good job building a strong resume on underperforming in the playoffs then throwing players under the bus, eh? At some point, constantly getting out-coached in the playoffs is going to have to stick to him, right?
I’m sure that they are dusting off his chair at ESPN – it’s just a matter of time.
And 1 – The Webber for Richmond trade had all of the appearances of a trade that was talent over culture. Petrie did a masterful job of building a winning culture with (and around) Webber. There are a lot of differences and components between that trade and this situation, but Petrie knew that without true NBA talent, all you were doing was shuffling deck chairs. It’s nice that the orchestra has the “culture” to go down with the ship, but the ship still sinks.
Assuming that a modern point guard’s most important skills are facilitating, defending, and shooting, I can’t call a player who is so far below average at one of them. “elite.”
Simmons is an elite facilitator, and an all-world defender. The fact that he can remain largely undefended on offense, other than when he has the ball outside of ten feet? That’s just too large of a detriment for a team to overcome consistently.
I’m not opposed to a trade, depending on the details, but if the idea is that you take on a max contract for a player who is extremely unlikely to ever be considered your team’s most important player? I don’t know. I have real concerns that Simmons may be broken. He’s been absolutely humiliated, more by his own failures than by anything said by anyone with the Sixers. Extremely limited shooting skills are a big problem, and his issues at the free throw line are devastating.
How can a player who needs to be taken out of close games in the fourth quarter possibly be elite?
^ no longer associated with the Sacramento Kings whatsoever hallelujah.
Did I miss that? Link please!
You missed it like Shaq misses free throws! 😛
Shaquille O’Neal sells stake in Kings after deal with WynnBet
(click on pic for link)
https://clutchpoints.com/kings-news-shaquille-oneal-sells-stake-in-sacramento-after-deal-with-wynnbet/
Again, the conversation is culture vs. talent, so if that means Hali vs. Simmons in a vacuum, it’s no contest. Hali is overwhelmingly unlikely to attain the level that Simmons has achieved at only age 25. And let’s remember, the only reason that Simmons is available is because Philly shat all over themselves after Simmons had a bad series in the playoffs, something that these parts have not experienced for a decade and a half.
Now, if you want to throw in their two contracts, it becomes a different conversation, and I would not want to take on Simmons’ contract without some path to my team becoming at least a top four team in the West during the run of his current contract. But that it is a different conversation.
Webber was far from a perfect player both on and off the court when the Kings obtained him. But as I noted earlier, they built around him brilliantly. And he was, without doubt, their best player, in spite of being a horrific free throw shooter when he first got to Sac.
Yes, Tyrese Haliburton is a better free throw shooter than Ben Simmons. And if the Kings were in a tight playoff game, I’d rather have him at the line than Ben Simmons. Problem is, you have to get to the playoffs first.
Also, Simmons is a career 60% FT shooter, but he only takes 5 a game. So he’s basically 3-5 per game. At 3.5-5 per game (1 pt. every other game) he would become a 70% free throw shooter, which is De’Aaron Fox range. My eyes tell me that Simmons more than makes up for the .5 pts. per game loss at the line in other facets of his game.
This is always a fun part of the conversation. “Simmons is a liability when you get deep into the playoffs.” I mean, I personally would love to find the Kings in a situation where we have the chance to rant and rave about how one of our stars was the reason we couldn’t get past the conference semi finals.
I’ll bet if it happened, you wouldn’t love it at all.
Adding Simmons, which would under this scenario, cost Haliburton, and likely Barnes or Hield, doesn’t (I think), make this a playoff team. You’re losing two reliable shooters, both of whom defend well, for a playmaker/defender that allows defenses to contract, making things much tougher for Fox and anyone else that gets some of their offense in the paint.
It’d be interesting, and I’m not saying that such a trade is off the table. I’ve seen a recurring theme that Simmons can’t play with Fox. I don’t actually believe that, because they both offer such interesting abilities, but one would expect Sacramento’s three-point percentage to drop for the season. Free throw percentage, too.
I have real concerns about Simmons’ self-confidence. My guess is that he can still give you 11/7/7 in his sleep, which certainly isn’t nothing, but if he hasn’t moved past last season, he’s going to be a liability at the end of games.
My only concern about his physical game is that he can’t shoot. Again, that’s not nothing, but maybe he can make up for that elsewhere. I’d need to know that his mindset is where it needs to be before I could truly be comfortable with acquiring him.
I’m willing to put it to the test!
I agree. That’s why you don’t see me proposing that.
I tend not to try to guess at the players’ psychological state or its impact on their future performance. We know Simmons’ flaws and how they impact his team’s results. I’m not going to speculate on how this will impact his psyche moving forward. Maybe his confidence is shot. Maybe it becomes a catalyst for improvement. Most likely he’ll be extremely similar to the player we’ve seen for the past 4 years. Give or take the usual year-to-year fluctuation.
This exactly. But this is always the fate of us armchair GMs. We just don’t have the access to the players to make accurate assessments on these issues. It’s the same reason I ranked Jalen Johnson high based on talent. I tend to try to assess players based more on objective criteria.
I suppose if we were to look at a scenario where Simmons was a free agent this summer, I’d wager that prospective suitors would want to put him through a whole battery of psychological testing. I’m guessing that trade partners in this current scenario aren’t likely to get much face time with him at all, since I’d assume that it would be viewed as tampering.
And Sacramento isn’t a large enough city for the Kings to be able to get away with that.
I don’t like to disagree with you Rob, but Simmons vs Haliburton, no contest?
Most of us have been underestimating Tyrese for too long. I don’t want to bet against him. The magnitude of what Simmons contributes is arguably more valuable, but he is a very flawed player. Haliburton has no major flaws in his game. Also intangibles. Do we know how Simmons would respond to being traded to Sacramento?
I agree Simmons is way more accomplished but dollar for dollar with Simmons set to make almost $150 mil over the next 4 years, versus Hali at about $22 mil over that time? He’s almost exactly %15! Haliburton’s salary equals the tip if Simmons’ salary is the dinner tab! In terms of trade value, I think it’s fair to say there’s a contest.
“max player”…. Simmons is a super max plus player. Which makes your obviously correct take even more… correct.
If I’m in Monte’s chair Haliburton is the one who is untouchable. He’s proven in the NBA, unlike Mitchell, and he’s cheap, unlike Fox.
He also doesn’t limit your opportunities. A one-position PG ala Chris Paul becomes available, no problem, he can shift to SG. A secondary ball-handler type SG ala Beal becomes available, Hali can run the point. The clear BPA at your draft pick slot is a PG or SG (or anything), you don’t have to think twice about fit. Want to go uptempo? Hali’s an excellent open-court decision maker. Want to run more of a halfcourt game? Great. He doesn’t dictate or limit other decisions the way many/most players do to some degree.
I think as Hali adds muscle and improves he could play any of the wing positions. There is so much untapped potential to his game, which is why he is my keeper if Monte wants to both win and build on culture.
Fox is outstanding and all, but he’s been the best player on this team for 3 years and the Kings haven’t sniffed 40 wins.
I kind of feel the Richmond for Webber trade comp is fair (age differences being the outlier). The Kings traded away their best player, who was even an all star, for a disgruntled star in Webber. Petrie put the right pieces around Webber to make it click. Maybe Monte could do the same for Simmons. Maybe he already has them.
Last I read, Haliburton added 9 pounds of muscle. Fox has bulked up substantially since his rookie season. I wonder if they can get Haliburton on the same regimen?
And Davion Mitchell is already a mini-Rock Ritchmond, body-wise.
Three Guard Lineup of Doom!
Woodard will anchor the middle and break anyone who gets past the guards.
But we don’t want guys who can’t shoot on this team
Fox for Simmons. It’s fair. It makes sense. It improves both teams. Just get it done, guys.
I like your enthusiasm!
Culture with the Kings is much bigger than keeping Hali over trading for Simmons. There needs to be turnover with this team to rid itself of those who also damage the culture by making themselves bigger than the team.
Team culture starts at the top.
The culture shift is a huge undertaking for this org, top to bottom. And our current owner doesn’t give me much optimism that it will happen anytime soon.
The only culture some people have is their gut bacteria.
Let me start this incoherent rant with the fact that I’m a huge Fox fan.
However… I ask myself what are we gaining and losing by a Fox for Simmons trade. Losing Fox feels like we are only losing points. The lost points can be more than accounted for with Simmons, Mitchell, Haliburton, Hield, etc. Fox doesn’t necessarily possess great leadership, defense, playmaking, etc. Adding Simmons provides a significant improvement in defense, a facilitator, and front court talent/size. Those are all things this team needs more than points. It seems like the addition of Simmons’ skills/traits heavily outweigh the lost point factor of Fox. I think a huge key to this is Mitchell. If he can be an adequate scorer, maybe hit >35% from 3pt land, while playing his defense then Fox is much more expendable in a Simmons trade imho.
And this (these) lineup(s) really intrigues me: Mitchell/Barnes, Hield, Hali, Simmons & Holmes.
But what do I know, I just work in real estate and have too many hobbies.
Let me sum it up: The gain of Simmons is greater than the loss of Fox.
Simply put.
And completely wrong (at least IMO)
Really? What does Fox do that is better than Simmons other than score 10 more PPG?
Does he rebound the ball better? No.
Does he pass the ball better? No.
Does he defend better? No.
Does he have a higher TS%? No.
The idea would be that players like Buddy, Hali, Barnes, Holmes, etc pick up the scoring load without a high usage PG in Fox. Simmons could potentially be surrounded by three 40% from deep shooters.
Better in the clutch.
Better in the clutch means little to me when you can reach 40 wins.
Simmons ran a team that finished 1st in the East last season. Fox’s only stat that has improved over the past 4 years has been points and his team hasn’t sniffed the playoffs. In fact, when he averaged just 17 PPG the Kings had their best record at 39 wins.
I understand your argument but, you asked and, I think it’s clear Fox is better in the clutch. Fox can put his team on his back in a way Ben Simmons cannot.
Another way to say it is, if you pass Simmons the ball in the clutch, he’ll pass it back.
Wait, is the implication that passing in the clutch is bad? Whether in the clutch or not, the goal is to get your team the highest quality shot possible.
“I…. (heaves ball)….agree!”
With seconds on the game clock, you can pass the ball to Fox with a high degree of confidence he’ll turn it into points, whether he’s the one who scores or not. I don’t have that confidence in Simmons.
Jackson Frank said w/o Fox or Haliburton, “It would take a bunch of picks.” How many is a bunch?
I say Buddy/Bagley (or TT), and 3 firsts (top ten protected), two swaps, and they can trade our three 1sts, plus a couple of their own, and get Lillard. Otherwise let’s ride with the guys who want to be here (Fox,Hali) and skip the drama until Siakam becomes available, He’s better anyway.
For one Fox has improved in TS% each year and since it’s a stat you noted previously as why Simmons is superior, I guess it should be noted here.
More to point, I think saying Fox doesn’t have it in the clutch because he is on a losing team, but Simmons is more impressive because he was on a good team in the East doesn’t hold a ton of weight for me.
Last I checked Fox didn’t play with Embiid last year or anyone even coming close to that ability. He probably didn’t even play with someone as good as Harris. I find it hard to imagine a situation where if Fox were exchanged for Simmons on last years Sixers roster, that the 76ers wouldn’t have been a top tier type team in their conference.
I can’t/won’t say Fox is for sure better than Simmons or vice versa. Think there are reasonable arguments for each. But it’s a silly exercise to compare who is getting W’s in the W-L department when the variables around them are radically different.
Devin Booker was apparently a “good stats, bad team” guy 2 years ago. That’s not the narrative anymore…probably doesn’t have a ton to do with him changing to become all world player, but rather the team around him and getting an opportunity for spotlight.
To be clear, I never said Fox doesn’t have it in the clutch. He totally does. I love his end of the game heroics, but that doesn’t mean he should be the #1 option and building block for the Kings.
To the point of who Simmons has played with, I really could care less. He’s an all-nba player and finished 2nd in DPOY. That is like saying Draymond Green isn’t all that good and shouldn’t be attributed with the W/L ration because he played with Curry.
Simmons’ value is diminished when the clock is running down and there isn’t time to pass. We saw that against Atlanta! Without being a threat to score himself his passing is neutralized. I like Ben Simmons but we’ve seen his effectiveness dive in pressure situations. I’m very much in favor of Ben Simmons but expectations should be based on prior performance. He’s the definition of Star role-player. He’ll make a great Robin to Fox’s Batman. Another Robin, because, Haliburton.
Fox, Hali, Simmons, Barnes, Holmes.
I suppose there isn’t much to talk about then. Because it really matters when trying to compare players and who could be better on what team…like a lot.
Not saying Simmons isn’t better necessarily, but if you swap Fox and Simmons the last couple years, I’m not sure the Kings are a ton better record wise without some kind of lead go to scorer. Simmons isn’t facing that with Embiid out there all the time during those stretches.
Last week everyone was telling me Fox isn’t worth Simmons. Now he is. Now they’re rumored to be willing to take Hali instead. Next week, just throw Barnes in with Buddy. How desperate are they gonna be when the season is starting and he hasn’t reported yet? Monte’s right, let it ripen.
Fox is one of the best pick and roll ball handlers in the entire league
https://go.nba.com/2mg3
Not only that Fox is high usage in pick and roll frequency (5th in possessions), he is also in the 69th percentile in efficiency. That means you can build an efficient half court offense around him.
Simmons, on the other hand, is low usage and low efficiency. How could he be a good shot-creator when he is that bad in pick and roll? Maybe post-ups? Isolations? Simmons is decent in post-ups and isolations but those opportunities are much fewer than pick and rolls.
To maximize Simmons’ talent, he needs to be paired with a high usage stretch 5 like KAT. Or he needs to be in the Warriors’ system of complex passing and screening.
Or on a team with three 40% from range shooters like the Kings (Hali, Buddy, Barnes)
I’d love to see Simmons operate with his passing skills and shooting percentage in the paint with the gravity of Buddy, Hali, and Barnes on the perimeter.
And then we can talk about the other side of the court, because that matters just as much.
The 76ers already tried what you suggested and they have just as good or likely better shooters in Green, Curry, Harris and Embiid. And their offense is just average.
There is not a template for Simmons to be a lead creator of a good offense. Most good offense rely heavily on pick and roll to generate shots for shooters. The Nuggets is the only team run a high number of high and low post actions but unlike Simmons, Jokic is an excellent scorer and offensive rebounder.
You don’t want to swap Fox for Simmons. You want Simmons to be a complimentary piece to our system. Our half court offense template is the Jazz. Multiple versatile pick and roll ball handlers surrounding an efficient, high usage pick an roll big. That’s why you need to keep both Fox and Hali.
Fox, Hali, Simmons, Barnes, Holmes
I would rather keep Buddy instead of Barnes. I think the 76ers would also prefer Barnes than Buddy.
Magic Johnson would disagree with your second paragraph. Alot. There’s a lot of different ways to play offense in the half court. And if you’re not great at it but have an exceptional defense that can generate points off the break…
That is essentially the Bucks. They push on fast breaks at every opportunity. Nevertheless, they know how to execute in half court. Giannis is excellent in isolation, not only scoring but also knowing how to find teammates. Holiday and Middleton are just good all-around players. Fast break only account for roughly 20% of your possessions; you still need to execute in half court.
If you are telling me that a team can be good in transition and bad in half court, I give you the 2018-2019 Sacramento Kings.
This is is true with the vast amount of offensive talents in the league.
Most teams rely on 2 lead wings/guards playmakers (mostly in pick an roll situations) to generate good shots.
In order to be a good half court offense, certain requirements have to be met. You can have a uniquely good offensive system, once again certain requirements have to be met.
One thing in common is that you need that lead creator to be an excellent scorer in certain situations.
That was a long time ago I am not sure if it is relevant any more.
Maximus, you complete me.
Lol, you had me at hello.
I certainly hope not.
Damn, looking at that top 5….we could have drafted 4 of those 5!
Actually, all 5 were there for us to draft. (But of course we couldn’t draft both Trae AND Doncic.)
Of those 5, we have the #5 one.
Count me in the Fox is untouchable and won’t be traded camp. However… I am much less certain that we shouldn’t pull the trigger on sending out Haliburton to get Simmons. I think that move makes a fair bit of sense actually.
I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong. I’d hesitate on Fox. No on Hali. I wouldn’t want to make a value comp.. It’s just too dicey w/o a crystal ball. The business decision, based on dollars to production, favors the guys on rookie scale deals.
Oh, I fully believe Fox is untouchable and won’t be traded. I just don’t think he should be.
Often times dollars to production favor max. deal players also. Again, I’d hesitate on Fox.
If he can avoid injuries, Haliburton will be a perennial all-star player. He has a rare court sense. I’d keep him over Fox and say he will have a better career than Simmons.
I think this is a little bit of a false choice. Haliburton has the talent and the opportunity to help change the culture. I’d gladly take Simmons but I’d much rather move Fox and roll with Mitchell, Haliburton and Simmons. Plus if we move Fox I think we could get something else back from the Sixers.
Kings and Country is a false choice!
How can you stand for both a King AND a country that fought against a Kings’s rule?
You should be flagged on the basis for besmirching FKC. Actually you should be flagged on the basis you exist… but I digress.
Maxey isn’t the best fit for the Kings currently, but he’s showing some flashes of quality.
I would be good with Fox, Buddy, top 5 protected for Simmons and Maxey
I think building a winning culture should be the focus. I just question how the King’s are supposed to build said culture with Walton as the coach.
A whole hell of a lot of talent!
He couldn’t even win 82 games with prime Steph, Klay and Draymond…
Ultimately, I think the answer looks like this:
Yes. And replace the “or” with an “and.”
My question(s) for you is: How much impetus is there to do a deal now? What do we risk by waiting? Is it someone else swoops in? Because it seems like his value drops the longer this goes on.
Nothing. I don’t have a problem with waiting. I don’t have a problem with not pursuing Simmons. The risk, in general, is that you just keep waiting as the 16th, 17th, 18th, etc. straight season in the gutter slips by. “Keeping your powder dry” is only an effective strategy if you do, if fact, fire the cannon when the opportunity presents itself. As usual, I’m curious to know when patience turns into inaction.
Well, Monte and Luke know Vivek can’t afford to fire them, so what’s the hurry?
Monte’s only got one season in, his seat will begin to heat-up around the trade deadline, and will start to be really uncomfortable if he hasn’t done anything tectonic by next off-season. Unless Mitchell really pops, then he gets another year. He’s just getting comfortable now.
I’m curious to know this, also.
True Shooting Numbers from last season:
Player A: .585
Player B: .584
Player C: .565
Player D: .547
Player A: Hali
Player B: Simmons
Player C: Fox
Player D: Siakam
(Regular season stats. As Simmons was the only guy to make the playoffs I could not compare those numbers.)
What do these numbers tell you?
There’s more to that story, IMO. But, I think it illustrates that Ben Simmons is reasonably efficient with the shots he does take.
The issue is deeper than that, however.
Yes we should definitely wait for Haliburton to transform into an All Star and All Defensive player. It should happen any day now.
Please thank your people for this on behalf of Kings fans!
lol…
Hah, and Morey still thinks he’s going to get everything that he wants?
Hope he washes up on the shores of the American River, so he can deliver us out of
Egyptthe playoff drought!Wow. Take away our rose colored glasses for a minute and put the whole thing into context, that’s really trashy of them. Dude’s a human being still, not an object. That’s some messed up, toddler level “reporting”, right there. No one will ever Troll harder than Philly, on God.
What were they thinking they’d accomplish with that ‘reporting’?
Who are the most gettable players from this list? Ben Simmons, Matisse thybulle, DeAndre hunter, cam reddish, Jaden McDaniels, Jonathan Isaac, TJ warren, cam Johnson, keldon Johnson, Devin vassell, Jeremy grant, saddiq bey, sekou doumbouya. If Simmons costs too much and will gut the team, why not trade for another guy that will cost less and still helps on the margins?
Simmons
Reddish
Warren
Doumbouya
I don’t see their teams being especially motivated to move any of the others. That’s not to say they’re ungettable. Just that you’re probably going to have to over pay to get them.
Looking at it again, that would probably be the order I would put them in if I were ranking those 4 by my interest level.
Maybe doumbaya can be had for a second or two from the nets.
Via BBRef, for Ben’s career, about 54% of his shots come in the 0-3 feet range while around 33% fall in the 3-10 feet range. His FG% for those two groups of shots is about 72% and 41%. Outside of 10 feet, he doesn’t take (or make) many shots. So how could we minimize his major fault (shooting outside of 10 feet), while taking advantage of his myriad other skills?
My potential solution works on the premise that he won’t suddenly become even average from the perimeter in terms of FG% or even shot volume. While not impossible to improve there, I just don’t find it likely that he’ll make any sort of major improvement.
So what to do? Park his ass on the block and surround him with shooters. Basically, let him play the Dwight Howard role from the 08-09 Magic, at least on offense. This plays to where he shoots the bulk of his shots from, while dramatically reducing his biggest issue, perimeter shooting. I have no idea what his back to the bucket game is, but if he needs work there, it seems like it would be easier to send him to Big Man U. where he could work on jump hooks with both hands and drop steps from either block than it would to get a non existent jump shot/shooter to at least get to average from 3 point range. Ironically enough, Vlade could really help here as he had all the moves and tricks as part of his back to the bucket game. If he’s doubled on the block, like Vlade, he has the passing skills to make teams pay for that. He’s got the size, skill and quickness and can work on his strength if need be. With this, he’d also be in great position to wreak havoc via offensive rebounds.
Is this solution perfect? No. He would certainly get fouled more, which means more free throws, which could be problematic if FTs are a mental issue. For his career, he’s a 60% FT shooter on around 5 attempts per game, so while not a great percentage, it’s not atrocious either imo. This is just an aspect of his game he’ll have to work on and manage. While not great, I could live with 60% from the line. You’d also have to find the right 4 other guys to make this work, something the team failed to do during the DMC years, even while Petrie was still GM. Obviously, Monte isn’t those other guys, but I’ll believe it when Simmons is killing people on the block while the other guys are raining 3s.
I was just trying to figure out a way to take advantage of Ben’s gifts while blunting (no 420) his weaknesses. It seems like this could work, IF we found the right complimentary pieces, and who knows if we could even get there.
It’s an interesting theory, although I balked at VD having any further participation with the franchise.
Simmons could be great in the high post, but there isn’t a big man in the league that couldn’t prevent him from establishing good position down low.
If this was strictly old school basketball where attempts to post up resembled wrestling matches and/or the guy on O was just trying to muscle his way to the hoop via a back down or something, I might be inclined to agree. There are other ways of getting post position that don’t rely on brute force. If Ben beats his man downcourt and gets to his spot, the defender can’t just uproot him and/or muscle him out of there. Cross screening would be another way to get him open.
I just think he could cause as many problems for a defender as a defender could to him.
Not that you were saying it simply as a matter of brute force, but I do think he could get to his spots.
But what you’re describing is a fast break. If Simmons has beaten his man down to the block, then he ought to be able to dunk or lay it up without resorting to post moves. Simmons excels at fast breaks, of course.
Things may be less physical in the low post than they used to be, but Simmons isn’t strong enough to back many guys down, nor can he impose himself on a spot where a defender already lurks. He’s crafty as hell, but if he’s going to spend a lot of his time on the low block as you’ve proposed, his scoring will be too dependent on outsmarting great defenders, most of whom know that if Simmons puts the ball on the floor, they’ll be able to move him away from the hoop.
I think that in certain match-ups, he could prosper down there, but not with a legit center or power forward on the court.
It’s not even necessarily a fast break situation. Not every defensive rebound leads to a fast break opportunity, so he could still beat his man downcourt even in a typical defense to offense transition. Not every time, of course, but probably consistently enough.
He’s also not limited to straight back to the bucket either as he could also incorporate a face up game as part of his overall block game. How many legit big men can stay with him if he makes quick decisive moves? I don’t know, but I’m guessing it’s a small list. NBA refs are still NBA refs, but they’re not 80s or 90s refs, meaning they can’t simply muscle/move him away from the rim if does attack that way. And remember, he just needs enough space to get his shot off, not necessarily blow by his man to get to the rim.
He’s obviously very good at driving to the hoop, and I suppose that I’d rather he get his points in the paint that way than by spending possessions trying to get around much larger players.
It’s a good creative idea! I can’t say with any certainty that it won’t bear fruit.
It’s seems like the most obvious way to use him is as a screen. Sometimes rolling. Sometimes playmaking off the short roll. In general, he needs to be treated as a playmaking big. Not a perimeter PG.
And I can’t imagine anyone ever will. His gifts are that he can get into the paint from the perimeter attacking smaller wings and guards with his size, moving downhill. Not matching up with guys his same size and trying to bully them.
He has seemingly never played this way even from the little AAU/high school tape I’ve seen, through LSU and pros. He likely doesn’t want to play that way, he has been a PG much of his life.
For those that want him to turn him into a PF or small ball 5 and make him more of an off ball screen setter, that’s takes some monster cajones. One wants to give up those assets, that type of money and then pigeon hole him into a style of play he has never done? Playoffs are a good example of what happens when he doesn’t have the ball in his hands.
I’m not saying it can’t work, but damn I’d be terrified to be the one to try and do that. Now if you make him PG, at least you have some reference points of what to expect and how to design a team around him.
As I mentioned below to Andy, it’s not all about bully ball. There are other ways for him to be effective in the paint and/or block area without that, using his quickness and athleticism for example. I certainly wouldn’t mind if he threw in some high post work, was the roll man in pnr, or attacked off the dribble from further out on the perimeter.
In my thought exercise, I was just kicking around ways to minimize his glaring weakness while trying to play to his strengths. From my perspective, his perimeter game is known commodity- awful. His post game is a question mark because he’s never really played there. Doesn’t mean he can’t or couldn’t be effective. We’d have to find out. Whether he would be willing is another deal entirely.
Agreed. This is why this whole Simmons trade doesn’t make any sense to me unless you aren’t giving up your best assets to do this thought experiment. If you aren’t giving up assets, then you probably aren’t getting him either.
Sending Haliburton and 4 draft picks for Bradley Beal is a big fricking swing…but at least I know what I am getting and fit. Everyone can debate the value.
Sending Haliburton, Buddy and a pick to Philly is a journey into the unknown in terms of fit and largely depending on him completely altering his play style into this big semi off ball wing offensively. I just don’t see it unless it’s for 50 cents on the dollar.
Well put.
Well put, deux. Really glad you came out of the shadows to join TKH, FWIW.
That is not good offense anymore. The 76ers actually post up the most in the league and their OFF RTG is somewhere in the middle.
I feel like alot of people don’t get the Sixers ORtg was 13th in the NBA last year but 3rd in DRtg.
The red banner “breaking news” thing is freaking me out. Stop it!
2017 at Toronto our starting lineup was:
Thomas
Garcia
Salmons
Thompson
Cousins
Jeez….
I may be a significant outlier in this conversation.
Simmonds is a talented player. Simmonds needs the right people around him to optimize his talents. That seems not to be the case in Philly and , IMO, would not be the case in Sac. He plays D, he rebounds, he runs, he facilitates, but he can’t shoot out side of 3 feet really. His % drops significantly from 3 feet to 6-10 feet. And he is so bad at FT’s that he gets the hack-a-Ben strategy. I think he is an ineffective PG and needs to play 3 or 4. Get the rebound, push the ball and pass it. Similar to Day-day at GSW. He needs a PG who can get to the rim, pass and shoot. He needs a SG who can shoot. and he can facilitate.
I think he was over-valued coming out of LSU and miss-identified as a PG.
The fit issue: to get him means giving up what he needs to be successful. Playing him at PG limits his talents and exacerbates his weaknesses. Playing him at SG means you don’t have a SG who can shoot.
There are plenty of good teams that had a starter who could not shoot- like Bruce Bowen.( not the best comparison I know but the point is- some good teams have had a guy who plays D, rebounds, pushes but can’t shoot) So his role would be rebound, push, facilitate and not shoot. Bowen’s role was an ocasional shot but mostly D. Simmonds then is like a #4 guy.# 4 in position perhaps but certainly in focus or offensive reliability . He could play that role in Sac but to get him all the pieces he needs to contribute to a successful team would have to used to trade for him- Fox ( no), Hali (no), Buddy, Barnes etc.
I heard above a plea to put him on the low block. He has not back to the basket game. His high % at the rim are due to drives and lay-ups not half court stuff.
I see him as a tall facilitator who can run, push and who plays good D. But he is not a scorer or a shooter and needs others to do that work.
That’s a lot of money and probably a lot of future capital to pay for a flawed player.
The narrative around here, and one with which I don’t necessarily take issue, is that Fox is a 1A guy, and we’re still looking for a player to be the lead dog. I’m talking about the kind of player who would be a real leader, and whose gravity would make the game so much easier for players like Fox, Haliburton, and Hield.
Convince me that Ben Simmons is that guy.
I don’t see a lot of Sixers games, but he hasn’t appeared to me to have that kind of personality. Simmons to me, seems like a fantastic 1A talent. but only in the context of there being at least one better player. Philly has that guy, but with their shooting deficiencies, and Embiid needing some room to do his work down low, defenses being able to completely sag off from your 1A player just wasn’t cutting it.
I think that Simmons could fit into that 1A role like a glove at Golden State, and likely a number of other places. If he’s going to be acquired at considerable cost, he’s got to be able to take up the mantle and drag this team to the next level, and I’m not talking about the play-in game.
It all depends on the price, but since I don’t think it’ll ever come down enough, making the Kings Ben Simmons’ team doesn’t feel like a big enough move, and realistically makes it more difficult to get a lead dog.
I guess that’s the bottom line for me: If you’re going to bet the farm, the return has to be a franchise guy.
But how many 24 yo’s are true alpha 1’s like you’re saying? Luca, Trae, Tatum, who else? I would say Zion, Ja, Donovan, Booker are 1A’s. I think most true 1’s emerge in their mid-late 20’s, and I would say Simmons has a chance to become that in Sac. Hell, Fox could, too, but Simmons seems much closer to me.
You can’t be the lead dog if you can’t shoot- this is basketball. Despite all the yapping, players respect scoring most of all and Simmonds is just not consistent. I think, he is a third or fourth guy and people are trying to see him or make him into a 1, 1A or 2 guy. He could help the Kings at SF or PF, not as lead guard and not as “shooter”- get the ball and push and play D.
76ers have had a clear winning record with Embid out the last 3 seasons and Simmons leading ! Always thought that was interesting !
Tyrese = talent + culture
Simmons=talent + culture
Both should and often do exist together.
In the past two decades the Kings teams that were decent had both. For the other fifteen years they were solely chasing talent and mostly “potential” talent.
Buddy,Barnes,Mitchell for Simmons
The problem with trading Fox for Simmons is who is going to be your alpha scorer? When you look at the successful teams in the playoffs last year, they all have alpha scorers. Mavs have Luka; Hawks have Trae Yong; Nets have Durant and Harden, Clippers have Leonard and George, Lakers have Lebron and AD, etc. Who is going to be the go-to guy if Fox is gone? Maybe Tyrese? But we don’t know. Maybe Mitchell? But we don’t know. Yes, you need defense to win too and depth is nice. But what happens when the Kings hit their ceiling and they realized they need an alpha scorer? They will trade their depth away to get one anyway. I think I would be more open to the idea of trading Fox if Hali becomes a scoring force this season.
And to the people who are saying, “Fox hasn’t lead his team into the playoffs in 4 seasons…” I know this is hard to believe, but some players take time to develop. Kobe Bryant average 14 points and 19 points the first two seasons. Could he have led his team into the playoffs during that period of time? I don’t think so. Not saying Fox is Kobe, but Fox clearly needed some time to work on his shot and body.
2004 Pistons is the model that comes to mind for me.
That was 1 team 17 years ago. Why not model after the 200 teams that came after? Here is the thing, if Hali averages 25 points this year, fine, you can consider trading Fox. But if Hali and Fox are scoring that well, we will be winning. If you don’t have an alpha scorer, your ceiling is very limited.
Actually, that team was successful for a long time, albeit only one trophy. And I wasn’t suggesting it to be outlier contrarian. It’s the type of roster we could actually have this season. Mitchell, Hali, Simmons, Barnes, and Holmes would be the most switchable D in the league, with an offensive emphasis on ball movement – an essential for small market, superstar-less success. Alpha Fox will continue to get us 30 wins a year, just like Alpha Beal, Alpha KAT, Alpha Lavine, Alpha Russ, Alpha Zion, and Alpha Wall. The guys you listed above are basically the top five superstars in the league. They’re not coming to Sacramento, ever. Build from a model you can actually achieve, rather than force a second rate 30 win copycat, I say.
And yet those teams are not clamoring to trade those players. Why? Because having a baseline alpha scorer is the key to eventually success. It doesn’t always work, but if you look at the playoffs, you need them. Do you think the Pelicans are trading Zion for Simmons?
I would.
Fuck nah, they ain’t. Simmons is good, and I think Zion is overrated, but you can see why Zion is more valuable.
I feel like people too often forget that you still need to score more points than the other guy to win the game.
Tell that to the 2004 Pistons, all the great SA teams, and now Utah. It’s the model for small market success.
Also, Zion is a fat dunker. Wait until he’s 25 and his freakish jump leaves him.
Agree with a lot of this…I don’t see Hali likely to end up being that type of “alpha” player. Personally I would be pretty surprised if he ever averaged more than 20-21 pts a game and I think that is even a bit optimistic. If you made me bet, I think he tops out at 17-19 a game, a great facilitator and a damn good 3rd option on a very good team. 2nd option on a decent team. Even in HS he “only” averaged 22 pts a game, then 6 as Freshmen. Fox averaged 32 in HS and then 16 as a college freshmen. It’s just more in his DNA…and that is needed.
You point out tons of examples of good teams with alpha scorers. It is the general rule…when we cite the few teams who have been very good without a 20pt scorer, it doesn’t negate the fact that 95% of the time, good teams do have an alpha/go to scorer. Play the odds.
This is my concern with losing fox. There aren’t a lot of guys in the league who can put a team on their back when needed, especially at the end of a game or when the shot clock is winding down. Teams that excel generally tend to have at least one of those guys. The NBA seems to encourage the one on one isolation at the end of games. If your closing lineup is Haliburton, Hield, Barnes, Simmons and Holmes, who is going to go get you a good shot when the play your running breaks down? Maybe Barnes? Maybe Halliburton at some point? I have little faith in Simmons or Hield being able to do it with any consistency. Fox has shown he can. And it all gets accentuated that much more if you make it to the postseason and the refs allow a lot more grabbing and holding to go on, so running plays becomes more difficult. I just feel like it’s not a good idea to trade away a guy that has this ability that is difficult to replace. Maybe if Halliburton or Mitchell develop into that type of player than moving Fox would make more sense to me.
You cannot give the ball to Simmonds and expect him to score, or even have a reasonable hope he will score. In crunch time, in half court, Philly took the ball out of Simmonds hands. If trade Fox for Simmonds, make Simmonds the PG ( totally ill-suited for that) he will fail. If Kings get him, he is a SF or PF and should not touch ball except grab and go but others have to go as well since he cannot even score at the rim. High % within 3 feet but reluctant shooter.
If Kings go one on one at end of game- Fox is the only one with a reasonable chance of success- not Barnes, not Buddy, not Hail and not Mitchell. and not Simmonds ( he has Embiid- Kings don’t)
I agree- Simonds NEEDS scorers to be effective and if Kings trade Fox, Hali or even Buddy to get him, he can dribble all he wants and push the ball but since he won’t and can’t shoot, there is simply no one to score. That’s great Simmonds plays D, gets the rebound, pushes up the court, gets to the rim, won’t shoot, so passes it to Woodard.
I don’t think the Kings have begun to build a winning culture yet (& it’s been so long since they made the playoffs that building a winning culture seems like a more appropriate description than rebuilding a winning culture).
Simmons would easily be the best player the KIngs have acquired since Webber. I would love to see a a lineup of Davion, Fox, Hali, Simmons and Holmes. Kings will have their own version of the twin towers. 3 shooters on the floor at all times. Simmons can defend and crush most 4-5s. It would be some very exciting basketball. Simmons would gobble up boards. If Simmons developed a half decent jumper, it would be lethal.
I’m not sure.
If Ben Simmons is being an ass about playing for a good team in Philly, what makes anyone remotely think he’ll buy into this horse shit organization?
Stay the hell away from Simmons, get what you can for Buddy and Bagley, and continue to build around Fox, Haliburton and Mitchell.
Badge Legend