After recording their second nine-game losing streak of the season, and after losing De’Aaron Fox, Tyrese Haliburton, and Harrison Barnes at some point over the last couple of weeks, and after having destroyed the hope of most of the fan base, the Sacramento Kings have somehow found themselves right back in the play-in picture. They’re on a four-game wining streak, as well as winning seven of their last 10, and that run has brought them within 2.5 games of the 10th-seeded San Antonio Spurs, who have dropped five in a row. With six games left in the year, there’s actual hope in Sacramento. Mama, I’m ready to get hurt again!
Sacramento’s path to the final play-in spot is narrow, but not impossible. They need several things to break their way, some of which are out of their control, as simply winning their final six games won’t guarantee them an appearance in the postseason. The first thing to consider is tie-breakers with both the 10th-place San Antonio Spurs and the 11th-place New Orleans Pelicans. The NBA’s tie-breaking hierarchy can grow horrifically complex, but thankfully, everyone involved played, or will play, an uneven number of games this year, reducing the discussion to head-to-head matchups.
Thus far this season, the Kings have gone 1-1 against the Spurs, and they have a critical game coming up against San Antonio on Friday evening. To put it frankly, if Sacramento drops that game, they’re probably out of the race. It’s by far the most important contest of the season, and perhaps of many of these younger players’ careers. Here’s what the Kings need to do, depending on how the Spurs perform on Friday night and the rest of the season:
Spurs win on Friday Night:
| Spurs Finish | Kings Must FInish |
| 7-0 | Out |
| 6-1 | Out |
| 5-2 | Out |
| 4-3 | Out |
| 3-4 | 6-0 |
| 2-5 | 5-1 |
| 1-6 | 4-2 |
Kings win on Friday Night:
| Spurs Finish | Kings Must Finish |
| 6-1 | Out |
| 5-2 | Out |
| 4-3 | 6-0 |
| 3-4 | 5-1 |
| 2-5 | 4-2 |
| 1-6 | 3-3 |
| 0-7 | 2-4 |
Of course, the Spurs aren’t the only team the Kings have to worry about. Sacramento also trails New Orleans by a full game, so they not only need San Antonio to struggle, they have to hope that the Pelicans jump on that same bus.
Thankfully, for the sake of the tracker, the Kings and the Pelicans do not play again this season. Unfortunately, for the sake of the Kings, the Kings and the Pelicans do not play again this season, as New Orleans holds the 2-1 tiebreaker over Sacramento. Simply tying the Pelicans for 10th will cost the Kings a play-in spot – Sacramento must finish one game ahead. Assuming that the Spurs cooperate and collapse, where’s what the Kings need to do to get by New Orleans:
| Pelicans Finish | Kings Must Finish |
| 6-0 | Out |
| 5-1 | Out |
| 4-2 | 6-0 |
| 3-3 | 5-1 |
| 2-4 | 4-2 |
| 1-5 | 3-3 |
| 0-6 | 2-4 |
Essentially, four things need to break Sacramento’s way for them to come all the way back from a horrific losing streak to the play-in tournament. First and foremost, they must, must, must beat the San Antonio Spurs on Friday evening. If they lose, they’re toast.
In addition to that particular victory, the Kings need to win at least three of their other five, final games to hold a glimmer of hope for the postseason. Outside of their own purview, Sacramento needs some pretty serious help from their competition in the form of two mini-collapses. Both San Antonio and New Orleans faltering over their last half-dozen games may seem like too tall of an order, until we consider the fact that the Spurs hold the second-toughest remaining schedule in the NBA, while the Pelicans rank seventh. Meanwhile, the Kings sit all the way at twentieth, including two upcoming games against the violently tanking Oklahoma City Thunder, a pair of near-guaranteed victories.
The play-in tournament is possible, if not probable. For once in the last 15 years, the Sacramento Kings need to take care of business, and if they can do so, they’ve got a slim shot at the postseason.
I…can’t.
Thank you for doing the work, Tim, but…
I just can’t.
This also seems like a good time to ask: If the Kings manage to finish tenth, or even ninth to reach the play-in, would you consider the playoff streak broken?
I don’t think that I would. The play-in is a gimmick, although probably one we’re stuck with as the NBA does everything possible to devalue regular season games. I think it will be hard for me to consider a 9/10 finish as an achievement until one of those teams gets to a conference finals at the very least.
I would not. The easiest way for me to define it is that the play-in tournament is the postseason, not the playoffs.
Play-In-Tourney-Suckas baby!
Playoffs, postseason. Two words, same meaning. There’s only pre-season, regular season, post season, and off season.
I would say Yes. On a a technicality. Playoffs are playoffs. The league makes the rules.
No, nobody is calling it a “play off game”. It’s a play-in game in order to make the playoffs.
I say no.
Play-in by the plain meaning of the language indicates that you need to play first just to get “in.” Ergo, you are not “in” the playoffs yet.
It’s just the NBA giving teams two different ways to make the playoffs: one by regular season record and another by a mini tournament of the meh.
What if the Kings end up with the 8th best record at the end of the regular season, but lost 2 games in play-in tournament? In previous sesons that would’ve been enough to end the playoff streak. Is it not enough now that there’s different rules about seeding?
That’s an interesting scenario. I’d probably consider 7th or 8th seed a playoff berth, but that’s probably not intellectually consistent.
That is not making the playoffs. It’s a brutal result, but the NBA created this thing.
That is more akin to finishing with a winning record – even top 14 or so in winning percentage league wide – but being out of the playoffs because two team with losing records make the playoffs in the other conference.
Nope. The same way Bumgarner’s no-hitter wasn’t an official no-hitter.
making the play in is not making the playoffs. If you win the play in and get the 8th seed you are in the playoffs. Either way, we can all agree that the play in is garbage.
Yep, we definitely agree.
I think the play in format is great. Normally at this time of year, there’re a couple of teams fighting for the last spot and maybe some questions about home court. But it’s mostly yawn.
Now we have teams fighting for 9-10 and 6-8 as well as the normal shuffling. Makes the last week or two of the season much more interesting.
HOW DARE YOU
The NBA has specifically defined the play-in as not being the playoffs. If you win in the play-in, you make the playoffs. If you lose the play-in, you do not make the playoffs and are in the lottery.
Didn’t know that Greg, I’ll change my response above. Good knowledge.
Doesn’t matter since the fucking Kings will claim playoff streak broken.
The worst thing for this team is making a run/getting in. Vivek will never change a thing.
This club needs a reset. It’s all a joke.
OMG. I am changing my mind and want the Kings to make the play in game just so we can get a banner hung right next to Vlade’s jersey in the rafters stating:
Right up there with the “Summer League Champions – 2014” banner.
“Play in – Play off.”
“Sweep the …Mavericks!”
Good point, Greg, here’s a link to an NBA.com page that clearly makes the distinction: https://www.nba.com/news/nba-play-in-tournament
“State Farm Play-In Tournament: May 18-21 | Playoffs Start May 22”
“Following the Play-In Tournament, the NBA Playoffs will commence with the traditional 16-team, best-of-seven series structure.”
I assume there’s also contractual issues to deal with. A lot of players have playoff bonuses written into their contracts. The league probably doesn’t want to get into technical legal issues about the definition of the playoffs.
The play-in format as outlined seems to penalize the #8 seed in the opening round for finishing ahead of the #9 seed. The #8 has to play a higher seeded team while the #9 plays a lower seeded team. It seems like they should have #7 host #10 while #8 hosts #9.
Then I stand corrected. Mind changed.
I would call it the playoffs, yes. It’s part of the postseason, I think. Maybe.
*edit* after reading Greg’s post just below, I’m changing my mind. TKH always comes through with the goods.
MLB and NFL have the “Wild Card” thing (a one game play-in featuring the last seed team and the team just behind them) and I get that. The NBA also has over 50% of teams reaching the playoffs every year so I’m not sure why the NBA can’t keep it simple like that or kick it to the curb altogether. Instead we’re fed a “play-in tournament.” It’s the post-season, sure. But the winners get fed to the best teams in the league after beating up on each other for 2 games. How’d you like to see a key player tear their ACL in a meaningless play-in game? NBA is being greedy here, and I doubt it will last long.
Knowing the NBA, they’re probably exploring the markets where they can add two franchises for the sole purpose of expanding the playoffs to 32 teams.
Probably Seattle and somewhere East coast
I’m pushing for Montpelier, so that the dipshit owner can name them the Vermonsters.
The Burlington Chunky Monkey’s has a better ring to it, honestly.
They need to win the playoff scenario available to them and become the 8th seed. Then the playoff streak is broken in my book.
I like to look at it similarly to March Madness. There’s a main field of 64. There’s also a play-in tournament to determine the final two entrants into the field of 64. So you made the postseason tournament if you make the NBA play-in, but you’re not in the main field of 16, aka “The Playoffs,” if you aren’t one of the two teams to advance from the play-in portion of the postseason tournament.
Ultimately, this stuff is all to convince more viewers to perceive more ads through their various sensory organs. Go Kings. Eat Arby’s.
The NCAA Tournament “first four” round is the devil’s work. An excuse to kick small-conference champions out of the field of 64 to make room for mediocre big-name teams that barely went .500 during the regular season but have a lot of fans who will buy tickets and watch TV. This happened to UC Davis a few years back–they won the Big West conference title, but got sentenced to a “first four” game the NCAA still shamelessly called the “first round” to hide the fact that it was a glorified play-in game that nobody pays attention to. You’d think it would be impossible to screw up something as pure and glorious as the NCAA Tournament, but the NCAA sure tried its best with that one.
Have a rec. First Four is just garbage.
Thumbs up for Arby’s …. I will go with this, not playoffs. Looking at the play-in game last season Portland vs Memphis. There aren’t even statistics posted for that game added to the players careers. It is a tiebreaker, and it creates revenue.
I’m sensing I’m in the minority here, but I love the play-in game(s). Having a few more meaningful games at the end of the season for a few more teams? Absolutely.
I know some folks feel like it de-values the regular season, because it allows a terrible team like the Kings to have some shred of hope even with their lousy showing most of the year. But I think it increases the value of the regular season for others–there is now a real reason to push for a higher seed as a playoff team, as being the 6th best team is now decidedly better than being 7th or 8th. I like seeing the Kahwis, KDs, and Lebrons of the world have to play in the regular season, rather than coast on “load management” because they weren’t worried about seeding.
Another thing it accomplishes is allows for some wiggle room for a team like Charlotte, who could have been derailed by LaMelo’s injury. With the play-in games there, they had a bit of a safety net.
And having a few more high-leverage games for some of the stars of the league–this year might include Zion, Steph, Westbrook?–that’s a win for the average fan.
I understand the value of the higher draft pick–I would have been fine with a year of playing the young guys, seeing who sticks, and getting some better draft odds. But I’d happily go back to the “old” system, where everyone who doesn’t make the playoffs goes into a pure lottery, without an advantage for being at the bottom. I think tanking at the end of the year is a worse look than 60+% of teams being eligible for the playoffs. Actually let’s take it one step further–what if the bottom three teams were guaranteed to pick 11-12-13th, and everyone else went into a lottery? You’d see everyone pushing through the finish line–it would be like promotion-relegation in the soccer leagues.
I’ll have no problem rooting for the Kings to make the play-in games, and getting a chance to take down a goliath. I wouldn’t consider it an end to the streak if they make they play-in–but as others have mentioned, I would consider it an end to the streak if they win the play-in, and become the 8th seed.
I like it too. I can see how teams that are good enough to make that 6 thru 8 spot wouldn’t like it though.
Have a rec, not because I necessarily agree or disagree with you, but for the reasonable tone of your post, compared to some of the dreck that has been on here of late.
Bagley leading this team to the play-in would be the most twisted and unpredictable ending to this very weird season. My goodness. Unbelievable.
It’s got ‘Feel-good’ movie written all over it.
The KH comments section would be…interesting.
Haha. I can’t imagine.
I like the improvement I’ve seen from him this season. I’m concerned there may be too much bad blood for him to stay with the team, but has to up his trade value in any case.
If we can move Buddy, keep Holmes on a semi-reasonable deal and make another good pick. I could see us being a solid bottom half of the playoff bracket team. A new coach would make that a lot easier.
Do that for a year or so and then look to package assets and consolidate some players into an established star from a team looking to start a rebuild.
I love Buddy but he is just too expensive when we have Haliburton and a capable backup in Wright. His dollars need to be spent elsewhere.
Good to see you commenting Kfan, hope all is well.
I did not see this plot twist coming.
What is this vudo?
I have to applaud Tim and TKH, it’s a lot of effort put in an article about something close to impossible. Regardless, it’s a very good content
The content here over the “website that shall not be named” is one of the many reason the community here thrives and kicks the pants off of Vox.
Surprised the other site still exists. I’m guessing they’re still averaging two comments per article.
They promoted a live-chat game thread a few weeks ago. Looks like they got 7 total comments4 of those were by their staff writer!
Progress!
I think TKH needs a patreon discord. I don’t want all the super hot models that follow me on twitter to know I’m a Kings fan, but the game thread can get a bit weird. I have no outlet when I just want to type “boom shakalaka!!” after a sick Holmes dunk.
The current discord channel is open? Thought it was Patreon related, but not that there’s much going on there…
huh…I did not know that (but I guess that’s part of the problem)!
Thanks for calling me a super hot model.
(not sure if I agree)
(all my 45 follows are hot models in my eyes)
So you’re saying there’s a chance.
insert Jim Carrey Dumb and Dumber gif.
I was always hoping the NBA could replicate the excitement of the NIT…
It should be noted that the Pels play their next 5 games on the road. [@PHI, @CHA, @MEM, @DAL, @GSW, vs LAL] is a lot more imposing when it’s almost all travel, including CHA/MEM back to back.
The SAS schedule after Friday is [@POR, vs MIL, @BRK, @NYK, vs PHX, vs PHX]. If they don’t beat the Kings they might not win another game this season.
The Kings might actually be the favorites for the 10 spot if they win Friday.
You don’t say…
The problem is, the Kings are playing four of their six at home – where they have, quite frankly, sucked of late.
Of late?
2-6 in their last eight, but mostly pointing to the losses to Detroit and Minny.
I assumed it was more like “since 2008.”
(Though if I remember correctly, Joerger had a decent home team one year.)
Thread Jack- From Sam Amick this AM: “I had an Executive tell me that not trading Harrison Barnes was one of the biggest gaffes in recent NBA history b/c his value was so high.”
“The executive failed to mention that he had offered the Kings two second-rounders and the rights to Wilt Chamberlain for Barnes.”
I don’t think a respected national reporter or executive throws that out without knowing if there was a good deal out there for Barnes.
This is likely why Barnes wasn’t traded.
I’m sure there is zero market for a true pro, having the best season of his career, on a manageable contract, with a championship pedigree. Who would want that?
Kings fans: Barnes is untradeable. He is way too valuable to this team!
Same Kings fans: Monty was not right to trade Barnes because he has no value to any team!
😉
Which leads me to the question, is it possible for ANY player on a perpetual 12-seed to be TOO valuable to their team to trade?
“He’s critical to ALL THE SUCCESS we’ve been having!”
So you agree that Barnes is on a good contract?
My completely irrelevant fan opinion: Manageable doesn’t mean good. Richaun Holmes is on a good contract.
Our GM’s job, if he wanted to trade HB, is to convince other GMs that its a good contract. That’s what he gets paid a lot of money to do.
A gross oversimplification, as if all a GM needed to do is read How to Win Friends and Influence People.
That is your opinion. Prove to me that’s not how it works. I want only facts.
Really, Sam, I don’t understand how they could have turned down my offer!
Well, if Amick is comfortable quoting unnamed sources, but wasn’t comfortable asking the source for details, or in reporting them, then it’s just another nothingburger.
The fact that Barnes’ value was high doesn’t mean that anything like fair return was in the offing. If that unnamed source knew of a legit offer, they’d have spilled it.
It’s lazy reporting, as it offers no new information to the reader. It’s the journalistic equivalent of standing up and declaring, “I haven’t said anything for a while.”
I agree that not asking for details is lazy, even something non-specific would suffice (ie. a couple first round picks or a mid-tier player). That being said, with some of the deals that went down at the deadline, we’d be silly to think that there weren’t some decent offers out there for Barnes. The concern for me is that this “gap year” strategy that would have very likely moved some players at the deadline seemed to completely pivot mid-season, and that is likely due to meddling from people outside Basketball Ops.
Well, since I can’t prove a negative (there being no decent offers), and am not interested in conspiracy theories, I’m still left asking, is there anything at all that even hints at a legit offer being tendered, and declined by Sacramento?
Forgive me, I remain unwilling to put any weight behind the vague horseshit that an unnamed person has to say.
Nah I’ll go with Sam here.
I assume the most likely explanation is they’re both right. There were deals available. Monte didn’t think they were good enough. Some other people around the league thought they were.
This seems too logical for the internet.
Perhaps, it’s also possible that some Kings fans who like Barnes are overvaluing him a bit when concluding that no good deals could have existed?
Yep, the question rests in the subjectivity of “good.”
It’s possible, but it hasn’t got anything to do with what Amick published.
the flipside could also be true. Barnes could prove the old-and-improved version of himself wasn’t just a small sample size.
Or perhaps it’s sour grapes. People who thought they could take advantage of the Kings and get Barnes for a song but couldn’t because Monte wasn’t the pushover they expected are now bitching about it.
OK, but if Monte’s plan this year was to gain financial flexibility and gather assets (his words) than those Barnes deals must have been really bad. I’m not buying that.
I’ve guessed on this before: I think that the valuations of the Kings front office as it pertains to Barnes and Hield exceed that of the market. That said, the Kings as an entity have been taken advantage of time after time during the Ranadive error, and this may be an effort by this front office to let the rest of the league know that those days are over.
Put another way, a late 1st round pick or a pair of 2nd rounders or Tony Snell (etc., etc.) does not really move the needle for the Kings, and the added cap space would only lead to having to overpay yet another free agent, so you’d have to take a look at who would be on the market and how much better they would be than Barnes and Hield. Or looking through it through another lens, what assets would you have to give up to fill that space with a KAT or Beal, etc.
To BHE’s point, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. But with that said, it is certainly understandable why a segment of the fanbase feels that there is tomfuckery afoot, based on recent and even not-so-recent history.
That’s were I disagree. The added cap space allows you to be ready for the next random deal that comes up, and they do come up (see e.g., TJ Warren).
To what end? The Warren deals included a the #32 pick when Phoenix dealt him, and Indy got him and a pair of 2nd rounders in exchange for cash. How does the net of that in exchange for sending out Hield or Barnes make the Kings better?
Again, I’m not arguing this as much as just seeing it from the POV of a front office that has determined to “re-tool” instead of blow everything up and start from scratch. And while that is a narrow needle to thread, I think it is less than narrow than going full tank with De’Aaron Fox being paid the max and being happy here. So it seems that the choice was move forward re-tooling with Fox or going full tank. The deal that you mention serves the latter, but really does nothing to serve the former.
I was giving Warren as an example of why flexibility is good.
That said, I don’t understand your analysis of the deal. The Pacers got Warren and picks for cash!
Also, are you suggesting that getting Warren at sub $13m per has the same team building value as having Barnes at $18-22m per?
I don’t totally agree here either. Creating that financial flexibility allows you to “re-tool” with players on better deals and even potentially upgrade, so re-tool better!
The Pacers got Warren and two 2nd rounders for cash. How is that tangibly better than Hield or Barnes? That is the question for a re-tooling team.
As it pertains to financial flexibility, it all comes down to what you can do with it, which is the point of my question regarding what do you do with it? Show your work. Give me some examples of small market teams doing such, and examples of missed opportunities by this front office as a result of hanging onto Hield and Barnes.
Again, I am not saying that I agree with the approach, but I do understand it. This front office has no interest in taking one step back in the hope of later taking two steps forward, especially if the yield is unproven talent and late 1st or 2nd round picks. I think that they feel that Barnes and Hield are tangible, and they want something tangible in return.
Look, we don’t disagree about much here, but I just don’t understand this:
To me, the tangible team building value of having Warren at $12m per versus Barnes/Buddy at over $40m per is pretty self explanatory. Those contracts are bad and limiting.
Let’s be fair – we are talking “or,” not “and” as it pertains to Barnes or Hield. So if the question is whether I’d rather have Warren and a pair of 2nd rounders or Barnes or Hield, I probably take Barnes, Warren/picks, and Hield in that order. Now, it is important to note that the Kings could have on-boarded Warren at the time of both of his last two trades, but those deals were not offered to them.
I disagree that the Barnes contract is a bad contract. $20m and $18m over the next two seasons for a guy that is better than an MLE player, so it’s an overpay but not an albatross. Hield has durability and volume 3-point scoring capability, so he is also better than an MLE player, but the extra year of his contract makes his worse.
Bottom line, and regardless of what we think, the front office has placed a value on these two players, and they aren’t moving them without receiving what they perceive as fair value for them. And I’m relatively certain that they do not see the benefit of cap space as being nearly as valuable as some of the fan base. I think that they perceive roster assets as being more valuable than cap space, and they see Barnes and Hield as assets. Time will tell whether they are right or wrong.
Fixed:
Also, we agree on everything except I’d take Warren on his deal over Barnes on his every day of the week. But as you said, I am not in charge and I don’t want to go too far down that as it is not a fair 1 to 1 comparison, it was meant just to be exemplary.
Carry on, other me!
Barnes’s contract in totality was not a good contract. At this point it’s palatable. Buddy’s contract is a disaster and perhaps one of the worst in the league right now.
If I’m following you, wouldn’t the Suns be an example of a small market team clearing a bunch of space so they could make a trade for a difference-maker like Chris Paul?
The Suns actually sent out $36m+ in contract for Paul, so it was really a cap-neutral trade. Phoenix netted up $5m in contract but was within the 125% trade rule, enabling them to exceed the cap to execute the trade. Cap space did not factor into the Paul trade for Phoenix.
They used the Warren cap space+ the previous offseason to sign Rubio and re-sign Oubre. Then, of course, Rubio and Oubre were the bulk of the matching salary in the Paul trade.
To be fair, they knew that they could not afford to retain Warren and sign Rubio, so they sold him with picks. They could have exceeded the cap to re-sign Oubre. So they reached an agreement with Rubio and dealt Warren. Nothing keeping the Kings from doing the same thing.
I really think the Warren thing is apples and kumquats here, but maybe I’m just missing the boat on this one. I’d like to stay out of the rabbit hole, though, and emphasize that I am merely looking at what the Kings front office may be thinking when it comes to Hield and Barnes.
Apple kumquat boat going down a rabbit hole? Sounds like Alice in Wonderland on Acid, LOL.
This should be an entry in the TKH dictionary page. Or Almanac or whatever. Perfect!
And werent their reports that Vivek the asshole didn’t want Barnes and Buddy gone? And he wanted to go for playoffs?
McNair claims opposite at start of season and then it changes?
This has V written all over it. To believe anything from the Kings is ridiculous.
Amick does touch on the inconsistency of the apparent purpose of this season as it unfolded.
I don’t know. It’s tough. Who should I go with here, Sam Amick or a fellow TKH commenter?
And I mean no disrespect to myself here as a TKH commenter!
Exactly. A lot more info about Kings Fucking this up than the other way around. I believe Sam waaaaay more then The Kings. Sam is typically right.
Not to mention, all/most logic points to Barnes coulda been traded for something decent.
Well, since you have, what was it, logic, I’d love to hear what exactly that it’s pointing to. Logic is used to find the answers to questions. Please show your work, and you get no credit for using the malpractice of the previous GM as data points as your assertion is about McNair.
unless “gap year” was a way to describe year 1 of a two year process to get the Kings back into the playoffs.
I have to say, these are my favorite genre of comments from you!
Step one, state that the information presented is not knowable. Step two, confidently conclude that not knowing means the information presented didn’t happen!
A negative, by definition, cannot be proven. It is entirely on the party making claims/suppositions to convince non-believers. It’s exactly like religion, which makes these confident claims of omniscience all the more baseless.
Wait, so in these various scenarios Sam Amick is part particle physicist, part preacher, part plaintiff in a lawsuit and part heretic of sorts? … man I apologize as I missed so much from that interview! There is a lot to unpack here!
?itemid=9961916
Guess we can shut down the site. If opinion cannot be shared and only fact can be discussed, we might as well turn the conversation over to the people that are actually in the room. And that is none of us, you and me included.
It was a nice place to have a conversation while it lasted. But you’ve outed the entire premise. Conversation of alternative opinion may not be had. Only documented facts may be discussed moving forward.
Jahmi’us Ramses!
This is lazy. If it was one person making unfounded claims, you just give them the okeydoke, and get on with your life.
A not insignificant number of people have made, and continue to make claims that McNair should have traded Barnes because there was good return available. That isn’t simply an opinion, it is an assertion of fact. Huge difference. If the goal is to both-sides every take offered here as if they were equally valid, than you’ve got something magnitudes of order worse than your facetious proposal of a strictly fact-based site.
You’ve got the Bee comments section.
I have any number of terrible opinions, and I welcome the debate, because I’ve learned a lot of things that way. I aim to have facts to back them up, because otherwise, I’m just another jackass with an axe to grind. There are plenty of things in sport about which to have opinions, and I have plenty of my own.
“Monte McNair blew the trade deadline.”
That’s an opinion.
“Monte McNair should have traded Barnes and/or Hield, because good offers existed.”
That is a statement of fact. If asking a person to support their assertions is beyond the pale, then you ought to flip your idea on its head, and make the site strictly opinion-based. Without specifics, Amick’s unnamed source is spouting an opinion, and who gives a damn about the unsupported thoughts of some person too cowardly to go on the record?
I think it’s probably safe to say that that the idea of trading for Barnes was painted in a more positive light this trade deadline than in any season prior. If you believe that was based on the particular circumstances going into this trade deadline, then you’d believe it was a mistake to not move him.
People disagree with you, or you disagree with people. No more, no less. There are opinions every day that you agree with, and you ask none of these folks to “show their work.”
I think that most of us understand that folks that comment in these threads are sharing their opinions, and not necessarily making statements of fact. My guess is that this is also apparent to you, and that it is the opinion that you disagree with, and not the lack of work shown or the lack of disclaimer that it is opinion only. Maybe I’m wrong and you don’t get that, but I’ve always seen you as a rather sharp person.
I would disagree that the discourse is so overwhelmingly opinion-based that the assumption should be made that there’s a good chance that most people have no idea what they’re actually talking about.
I learn something nearly every time I’m here (game threads excepted), and find a lot of very bright people explaining things for dopes like me. I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that when those people have opinions, additional information to support them is usually available. Ultimately, they’re still only opinions, but the information allows me to follow their train of thought to see how they might have reached a conclusion. I’ve had my own opinions changed many times, and it’s kind of a pleasant experience.
Without banging on forever, there was another event that recently happened where a lot of people asserted that a thing was true, and made a lot of noise about it. Because of the nature of this event, the law required them to offer proof to back their assertions, or somehow support them. There was none.
The fascinating, if unsurprising part, is that it hasn’t made any difference. Discourse on the event remains as stupid as it was the day it happened. It’s done a lot of harm, and it’s in no small part because people who ought to know better didn’t challenge them, and reported them as though their unfounded opinions had merit. This isn’t how conversations are supposed to work.
People can assert whatever they please, but saying so doesn’t make it so. I am a curious person, probably to a fault, and when something doesn’t add up for me, I ask questions. The best thing about this site is the information presented by writers and commenters, and in lieu of that (and often in concert with it), a lot of very funny shit. It’s possible that this has given me unrealistic expectations, because when I read something that isn’t at least vaguely informational or funny, my response is, “What’s the point?”
I do have a legitimate issue with disinformation, which goes a long way in understanding my responses. I get enough of it every day about far more important matters, and it’s disheartening to find so much of it in my leisure time pursuits. There’s enough bullshit built in to being a Sacramento Kings fan that I think that we can do without so much more of it being piled on top by not challenging the verity of unnamed sources and a stream of unfounded narratives.
And you, Robert, are a regional treasure, with a legit chance to go national.
Simple solution the question should have been asked. Did you get any trade offers for Barnes and if so can you give the fan base some idea as to what the best offer was. Absent of that information we have no way of knowing.
I sure hope years down the road the rumor doesn’t turn out to be Barnes for 2 unprotected first rounders with a young player like Nesmith….for as long as Vivek is in charge, I won’t believe this FO when they say flexible is a priority
Sounds like they’re salty Monte didn’t gift them an asset if you ask me.
If this team truly intends to contend (as Vivek insists, constantly,) then keeping Barnes and getting more usage out of him makes a whole lot more sense instead of trying to trade for a guy like Barnes.
Right, but this team hasn’t contended since Vivek took over. He has had more than enough chances, and years of failure to show for it. He needs to stop deciding what the best path is for this team and let the experts do their job.
Why don’t you address the actual topic of Sacto_J’s comment having to do with this season’s trade deadline, instead of once again using Ranadive as your boogeyman?
“If this team truly intends to contend (as Vivek insists, constantly,) ” implies Vivek is charting the course for this team, which is the problem. If you feel Vivek is doing a great job, more power to you.
So, you’re not going to actually respond to what they said about the supposed Barnes trade offer?
I’m trying to follow you here Andy but you’re wearing me out…SactoJ says the exec is salty Monte didnt gift them an asset. That isn’t a trade offer to respond to. For a guy who is set on only discussing 100% facts, you sure love being non-specific.
I honestly don’t understand what it is you’re trying to say here, other than the last sentence.
My comment asked a simple question, which seems specific enough in regard to the information I was seeking, as did the one before that. But I suppose there are people out there who don’t notice when you arbitrarily change the subject, and respond accordingly. You should focus on them.
Would you have approved of Vivek intervening in Luka draft and overidden the choice of the GM or would that have been meddling?
What about the hiring of Malone and Joerger, Vivek hires, vs Vlade hiring Walton? Would you have wanted the owner to intervene here? Maybe the owner should have meddled more.
The problem with Vivek is not intervening, a lazy trope from the Nik Rocks Draft, it is that he hired Vlade in the first place as a public relations reaction to the pencil pushing disaster of PDA. Vivek gave a guy with a lot of goodwill in the community a chance after this obscure analytics corporate climber from Denver flopped.
The recent move Vivek hiring the new GM is very encouraging so far as every move he has made has shown prudence and foresight. Wake up and smell the tea leaves.
Your comment is so fallacious that Vivek needs to let the “experts” do their job.
Vlade was NOT an expert. He’s the guy that had a better trade 48 hours ago!
I do not care you want to blame the owner but it has to be for the right reasons, and it is lazy unproven assertion to say the owner “just need to get out of the way” because maybe if he was still “in the way”. we would have Luka and Joerger instead of Bagley and Walton.
And again if you are again to judge Vivek on his most recent move, I strongly assert he made a major upgrade to McGenius from McDunce.
Ya know, it could just be that Monte has no idea what he’s doing (yet). I mean, I’m pretty sure we’ve seen that around here from first time GMs.
I suspect that’s not the case, but I’m not ruling it out.
Vivek and FO is the biggest gaffe in NBA history.
Obviously should have traded any and all to bottom out and reset. Idiots.
Run at playin is completely useless.
I really like Barnes, but I’m also kind of wondering if I maybe overvalue what he brings to the team. I haven’t really noticed him missing. I think that there’s a chance that him being the vet, having playoff experience, and being a versatile overall player leads to the team deferring to him too much. It seems like the void he’s left has been eagerly filled by multiple players.
First of all,
Second,
The play in gimmick is a joke. Teams like the Kings have no business getting a two-game redo on their failed season. If you can’t even make the 53% of teams that already make the playoffs then you aren’t a good team and should be done.
I’m reminded of a quote from a small town mayor:
The play-in has nothing to do with rewarding teams or fostering competition. It’s all about another fistful of dollars.
I get that. That’s 100% what this is about. That’s why I think it’s just trash gimmick ball.
I am speaking from a competition stand point, which at some small level is what sports are still about, right? 😉
Absolutely! I’d say at the pro level, competition in some sense is probably as high as 2 on the priority list!
Haven’t heard anything regarding Fox’ status. Assuming no lingering impact, what is the timetable for his return?
October.
But the Sacramento Kings have never made the World Series.
Ugh, Walton again.
We’re screwed!
Why torture yourself with something that has about a one percent chance of happening? The season has been over. Focus on the off season.
Seems like the tank flipped, no?
You just have to believe. We are not only going to get that spot for the play in but we are going to secure the 8th seed by winning both games. This is the year we break the playoff drought.
I love this. Spoken like a true Kings fan… There’s always hope!
If there had been just one horrific 9 game losing streak instead of an astounding 2, I’d probably be right there with you. Go Kings!
The Kings are at strike 5,437,926 and yet still convincing many fans that they are still up to bat.
My excitement level shown here
However, it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to have some hope here. There are a lot of teams fighting for better seeds, I don’t see a lot of coasting. I know I wouldn’t want to play the Sixers or Nets right now. Apologize for threading this twice…
I don’t care if the 7 or 8 seeds get knocked off in the play-in, the teams who finish in the top 8 after 72 games are considered the playoff teams in my book.
It would be good for the Kings to experience some kind of post season action. Barnes and Fox would probably be back in the lineup. It would come at the cost of losing draft seeding. They’d either have to win a lottery pick or do like last year, find a good player at the 9-12 spot. If the #2 pick from the 2018 draft is finally playing up to his potential, that helps a lot.
My prediction… Not that it’s different from many others.
We finish half to a full game back of the 10 seed. We’re not making the dumbass play-in. This is the kAnGz. It was written.
13th pick here we come.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Absolutely.
Not only that. They will make a big to-do about almost making the play-in game as a sign that we’re on the verge.
It’s already being pushed as “after all the adversity they’ve faced, from the pandemic to the rash of injuries, Luke has this team on the verge of making the playoffs. They’ve really been playing well the past month.”
No. I refuse to do this.
what happens if the Kings, Warriors, Grizzlies, Spurs and Pelicans all finish 35-37?
it would be funny though if they just forgot to figure out what to do in the event that 5 teams finished tied for the 8th seed.
(I checked, and I guess the teams would be seeded based on their win% against the against the 4 other teams. If all 5 teams have the same common opponent record, then it goes to a random drawing!)
Cage match would draw more viewers.
Play-in to see who makes the play-in!
“Bagley has a folding chair!!!
…
…
…and he has slammed his fingers in it and will miss the rest of the match…”
Only took me a few clicks to move up the mock draft on Tankathon to select Jonathan Kuminga!
One more click and there we are.. back down to Corey Kispert
Ah yes, The lesser known of the Coreys:
What a sad directionless franchise this is. To not be able to win correctly OR lose correctly year after year really takes next level ineptitude.
Even if we make this play-in, then what? This team has shown for well over a decade that they can’t play up to any kind of challenge presented to them. Not that I am worried about making the play-in because we know that the only reason they’ve been doing well the last few games is that they thought the games were meaningless so there was no pressure.
I will be positively shocked if we don’t get destroyed by the Spurs and then OKC. Then, once the pressure is off, we will close out the season with a few more meaningless wins.
Love to see them prove me wrong but I’m not stupid enough to bet on that.
Eehh we’ve been here a couple of seasons now and both times they’ve found a way to stumble when the games matter.
Pretty sure they’ll lose the game vs the spurs in an old KANGZ fashion. Probably for the best as that will kill all hopes on a play-in tournament and keep a better draft position (although I’m pretty sure we will be selecting 9th or 10th in this upcoming draft).
The “Tim was very bored” thread
Seems like the Kings need to do a lot right while also hoping other teams do a lot wrong over the next two weeks. With as inconsistent the Kings and other teams have been this year, I just don’t see it happening.
All that being said, I’d put money on the Kings pulling a full Kangz and finishing just outside the play-in tournament and will justly be groined kicked with the worst lottery slot of any of the non-play in teams.
If we make the play in, we could be dangerous. I wouldn’t count us out (or in) on any one specific game.
Dangerous to the future of the franchise maybe. Since Vivek will see making this play-in as the ultimate prize – likely keeping Luke around while simultaneously worsening our chances at a good draft pick.
False hope is the last thing we need from this team. We need to see real, tangible results for long term winning. Not this gimmicky side show where Vivek can proudly exclaim “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” as we get absolutely pummeled in the play-in.
This is the wrong time to be thinking about that. At the beginning of the season the goals should have been established but you don’t worry about your draft position with 6 games left in the season and an outside shot at the playin round.
I agree with you. The ship for draft position has sailed, outside of the possibility of moving around a position or two. And it’s going to be tough to outtank the teams below us.
Might as well go for it.
Only if Ty came back, and I don’t think that is happening.
This article’s existence proves that Tim Maxwell is a sadist.
Think about it…
Two 9 game losing streaks. If they were 7 or even 8 game losing streaks, we’d be better off and more hopeful. But they had to be 9. Well, we Kangz together, we Kangz together.
The Kings are not winning tonight vs the Spurs. They are not going to make the play in game.
Badge Legend