Speaker 1: What is up, Fellasikos, I am Dan Valley coming at
you with a brief intro what you're about to listen to.
Grant and I discussed the NBA TV ratings interest three
point discourse. There was a riveting discussion happening in our
discord go join that. It's the podcast in the two description.
I did not know about it when he asked me
if we could rip it riff on it. I did
not see the discussion and we ended up going basically
the length of a full episode on it. So I
hope you enjoy it. Let us know what you think
again in discord or the YouTube comments. Thank you as
always for your support and since this is the last
episode will be releasing before the holidays start coming at
us fast and Louis, or as they're coming at us
fast and loose. Happy holidays to you and yours in
whichever holiday you celebrate. But now let's talk some NBA
TV ratings, the thing that everybody just wants to discuss
around this time of year. Let's talk about everybody's favorite topic,
NBA TV ratings. Yeah right there here, For it does
seem like it crops up anecdotally, like once or twice
a year that this ratings thing or the way the
game is played, or why it's not generating more interest.
I think it's a more nuanced discussion than people they
try to boil it down to three point attempts or
why people aren't watching or certain mediums. I'm just curious
your thoughts, grit. It's out there. I'm not even a
site of specific source. It is everywhere, including before I
throw it to you, from the league's media partners that
are just like out there talking about this in a
weird they talk about the NBA in a weird lights.
I'm just curious, where are you at with this discourse
over not just NBA ratings, but the state of the
NBA game and overall interest in it.
Speaker 2: So to take the ratings thing first, I think, like
I guess, I just wonder at a threshold level, like
is this actually a concern? I guess, And to your point, like, yes,
it is a topic of discussion with what percentage of
NBA fans and the audience. Is it actually something they've
thought about? Right, Like because we're in the silo, right,
we're in the echo chamber now, like the commissioner's talking
about it, but It's like, what out of out of
every ten NBA fans that watch a handful of games
every year, like, do nine of them like not even
know that ratings are being discussed? Like do they? Like
I get I think what we do sometimes is we
have an amplification problem. Like that's true of like every
That's one of the core problems of social media and
all this other stuff is like every opinion gets treated
like it's equally loud and it can get amplified depending
on what silo or echo chamber you're in. So like,
I don't know that the ratings thing is as big
a deal as it's. Like Adam Silver like shouldn't have
to talk about it. I don't think or if he does,
he should like anyone that says, oh, the ratings thing
is a problem, it's it's bad for the league. Nobody's
watching anymore. It's like my shutdown of that would just
be some version of like, yeah, you're you're right. The
biggest media companies in the world, who have all the
resources and incentives and motivation to figure out what the
NBA is worth, we're wrong to spend tens of billions
of dollars to have the rights to broadcast to stream
it going forward, Like you're correct, ratings are a problem.
All these multi billion dollar companies that just spent a
lot on it are wrong. Like I just think, Like,
isn't that dispositive of the issue, Like is it doesn't
any talk about TV ratings? Just stop mattering when the
league just signed the biggest TV deal it ever, the
biggest rights deal it ever has. Like, clearly these companies
have information that suggests to them there's enough growth potential
and it's popular enough to spend all this money on.
Like what why are we still talking about this?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I honestly don't know, especially in the aftermath leading
up to it. Okay, sure, sure, but the people that
have predicted and I saw these predictions, by the way,
before the last TV deal was sign up, the NBA
is not going to be a league in ten years
or something.
Speaker 2: It happens all the time.
Speaker 1: I do think one of the problems is and I'm
probably I won't speak for you, I'm probably guilty of
this too, of being too dismissive to people that have
these counter opinions, probably because I'm tired of hearing them.
So people have them and their fans like who I
just don't know fans that actually care about ratings, like
if you're not watching, if you decided I'm not going
to watch the NBA, so you're part of the ratings problem,
Like why are you caring about it? Then? But in
so far as you care, we probably need to be
receptive because fans do drive the interest level in the game.
But I just so much of it seems disingenuous. And
the thing that I struggled to wrap my head around
is my second point, the way these ratings are measured,
Like do we what's the efficacy level of encompassing all
the different forms that the way in which the games
are consumed, where it's across all these different platforms. We're
going about the death of regional sports networks basically how
are they tracking it beyond just regular television? But also
like how are you tracking it there? And then Amazon
of course effort going in on an MBA package has
to have other datas like how are these ratings factoring in?
And the other thing I wonder too, is that the
NBA has tried to make itself more marketable to the
younger generation, and that lends itself to I guess a
lot of highlight culture or consuming on social media or
via YouTube. How do you track that in the interest
level in that I'm not saying there's not a problem,
but I'm just saying, like the way that everything is
consumed has changed, and that I think companies understand that
maybe the ratings are going down like relative to years past,
but we live in such a different world now to
the way that stuff is consumed. Whereas live sports, even
if they're generating a smaller share of average viewers, like,
they're still the one thing that bring people together around,
like I'm going to tune in at this time to
watch this thing. We don't have appointment viewing television anymore.
And I also think, before I throw back to you,
I don't want to hear comparisons to the NFL. The
NBA doesn't have the same scarcity of product, right that
every game in an NFL regular season accounts for what
five or six percent.
Speaker 2: Shorthanded it matters, Yeah, And so.
Speaker 1: If you want the NBA to shorten the season, that's
an entirely different discussion.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think, like you can be objectively right and
say ratings are down if what you mean is fewer
people watch full games on TV like that, Sure, that's
fewer people align on what they watch on TV, just
across the board, like you talk about just think about
like I don't know, the finale of Friends got like however,
like more you know, it's tens of millions and viewers
and like I don't know, just because there were fewer
things and now everything is so dispersed that like it
just you're never going to see that again. So like
you can be right, But if if you're using that
argument about the ratings to say the league has a
crisis of fan interest in some regard and then we
need to look at like what's causing that, and that
gets you into like ohgenous offense two many three's all
this other stuff. I don't think you can say that
because conventional TV ratings are down there is a crisis
of interest. And I would just say again, like maybe
I'm being naive, but I don't think you would have
a bidding war that topped out at the crazy numbers
it did for the rights to NBA games and content
if there were a crisis of fan interest, Like I
just don't think you can make that connection. It's because
you're right, Like it's just being consumed differently, and that
does not involve sitting down for two hours and watching
a game like it used to. And that's like not
at all surprising given the way that everything is consumed
now certainly compared to how it used to be. So
like that does get into some of the unless you
have more to add on the ratings thing, like the
state of the game stuff that Lebron is talking about
that talking heads all across the board are bringing up,
and Adam Silver's talking about like all the three point
stuff like do you do you? Are you again? I
think you're right to say people are saying that and
do think that, So we shouldn't be totally dismissive of it.
And I'm guilty of being extremely dismissive of like both
the ratings and the like threes are a problem conversations
because I just disagree. But like, so if we're gonna
charitably engage with those arguments like where are you on
the threes thing, on the state of the game thing,
and on it being like a problem we need to address.
Speaker 1: So, as you mentioned, us being in our silo, it
gets difficult because when I'm watching I forget. I don't
watch any NBA games right in my mind when I'm
dreaming watching NBA games, I don't, Yes, there are teams
that are trying to take the same shots the methods
by which they get there. I don't feel like I'm
seeing all this repetition specifically across thirty teams, but let
alone across Oh there are like even ten five to
ten teams that play exactly the same way, and I
think that there are probably Maybe that's worth a podcast,
like rule changes the NBA could consider, but like getting
rid of the corner three as an example, just no,
that would just cram up the floor so much. I'm
more receptive to should the floor be expanded so that
the corner three, then we might be taking away court
side seats, but that is longer. I just think I
can't remember who likened it to this. But do you
get annoyed in the NFL that running backs are standing
in a different position now than they were years ago?
And that's kind of what's happening with the NBA, where
it's players know to take steps back rather than in,
especially if they're not dribbling with the ball or playmakers.
I'm oversimplifying this. Yeah, I totally understand, but I don't
the homogeny of NBA offense or NBA play style, It's
non existent. It's like the shot profile. Okay, threes have
gone up, but like the game has changed, we have
more skill than ever. Teams are built in all these
different ways, and a lot of the clips you see
going around are also just like garbage time, where okay,
if there's gar garbage time, do you want to have
a conversation about parody? There's also when's the less time
there was this much parody where you might say that
there are two or three teams that you were Tier
one title contenders. How many Tier two title contenders do
we have right now? Or how many teams can you
talk yourself into making a conference finals? There's real parody
half the league easy and I can't help but thinking.
I have another question on this for you, But I
can't help with thinking. Do you think this comes down
to if you view this as a problem, are we
then because I did say we shouldn't be dismissive? There
are smart people who do feel this way. The too
many threes argument, for instance, I just I'm totally against
getting rid of the corner three. I don't know where
you land on that okay.
Speaker 2: So before you ask the question, I want to there's
two points I want to hit that you brought up.
The first is the offense is homogeneous like that. That's
not true. That's wrong. I think, like, I don't know
if you've seen all the recent discussions about Memphis offense,
where essentially, like the pick and roll took over basketball
fifteen twenty years ago, became ubiquitous. Everybody was running pick
and rolls and even now like ball screens and handoffs.
Credit to Ben Taylor who did an awesome video about this.
I'm thinking basketball, Go watch it about the Memphis Grizzlies offense.
So Memphis is running essentially like forty three pick and
rolls or on ball screens and handoffs per game this year.
That's like half of the league average. So Memphis is
doing something that is wholly unique like that their offense.
Draymond Green talked about it after a couple games ago
the last time they played him, is like, he's like,
nobody plays like that. Basically, like they they run this
unique space and drive and replace and rotate offense that
does not involve on ball screens. And it's like if
you're watching that and then you're watching a pick and
roll heavy team and you say offense is the same
because they're generating threes out of both of these, Like
that's that's absurd, Like the process is could not be
more different. The end goal, because of math, is to
shoot a lot of threes, and okay, cool, that's just
how you optimize offense. So one offenses are not the
same two. If you're saying there are too many threes
and we need to change the dimensions of the court
or move the line back or whatever, okay, let's be
receptive to that. But what is it you want to
look different? Do you want there to be more long
twos because that's what you'll get? Like that, I think
that's what's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: If you move the three point line back, like the
RF back, are you even gonna get more long tours
or you're just going to get even like more dramatic
spacing than you have right now.
Speaker 2: It depends on the fix. Moving the lineback might not
be the best example, because I think you're right, you
just would get more space, more threes, more whatever. But
like I think it was on dunked on they were
talking about like if you look at the historic shot
frequency data before everybody was taking a lot of threes.
The percentage increase in three point attempts basically pulled only
from long twos. What like rim attempt rates and short
mid range stuff has been pretty constant as percentage of
shot attempts. But what you're trading are long twos for threes,
and so, like, I think you need to if you
don't like the three point volume, you need to make
the specific suggestion that is going to result in a
changed offensive landscape that is not a bunch of long
twos because you're not going to eradicate jump shots. Like
and also, this is the last thing I'll say, And
sorry for discord people who were having a great discussion
before we started recording. I'm just going to regurgitate.
Speaker 1: I think like.
Speaker 2: You if you say this is a broader point, I guess,
but we'll apply it to basketball. If you say, like
you liked how bald was played in the eighties, nineties,
two thousands, whatever, because it wasn't just guys chucking up threes,
I think you got to think pretty hard about like
how old you were when your formative experience with basketball happened.
Because your favorite music is still from then, like your
favorite movies, your favorite whatever happened between a certain age range,
and that's when you were just more emotional and receptive
to stuff and like codified like I like this, It
doesn't mean it was objectively better. That's just one thing
to think about when we're asking for like I wish
it was how it used to be.
Speaker 1: Just the myth of nostalgia.
Speaker 2: Sure, sure, exactly good good, good label to put on it. So, like,
I think you got to be careful when you're talking
about threes being a problem with just saying that and
not considering what some of the changes to limit threes
would do to the product, and assuming that fewer threes
would make it better. I just think what you might
be trading for would make the game worse potentially, because
there's not really a lot of evidence to suggest that
fewer threes would lead to like more wide open dunks
or like good post ups or you know, I don't
know that you want to.
Speaker 1: I don't know that you can engineer.
Speaker 2: Those types of things, and I don't know that you
necessarily want to, because like watching eighties or nineties or
early two thousands game and that's not a fun experience.
Speaker 1: It's slow.
Speaker 2: It's if there's a bunch of guys out there that
are unskilled. Like we've really made it so that every
position is skillful now. So I don't know to stop
there because I've gone for too long. But does any
of that resonate with you?
Speaker 1: Am? I does?
Speaker 2: Like like what like? I just don't understand the knee jerk.
Too many threes thing?
Speaker 1: Right? And look to back up your point, So let's
go back more than twenty years to two thousand and three,
two thousand and four, which is as far back as
cleaning the glasses. Data is right now, eighteen point three
percent of all shot attempts came as three pointers. That
number this year is thirty nine percent of all shot
attempts for three pointers. That is a draft that's more
than double. It's a drastic difference the rim frequency. Again,
in two thousand and three two thousand and four, thirty
one point five percent of all shots came at the rim.
This year thirty two point five percent of all shots
come at the rim. The shots that have left too.
I'm just backing up your point that there was.
Speaker 2: No data because I was being vague about it.
Speaker 1: It was it was long tuos and I here's the
other thing, and this maybe ties into the nostalgia aspect
of it or maybe not. And this is not I'm
not I'm really I'll speak for my own experience here
the game now, I feel like it's harder to understand
because there are all these different things happen I think offensive.
So generally everyone says it's they're just trying to drive
and kick, or they're dribbling off the floor or dribbling
up the floor and shooting. They're not look at all
the stuff that's happening away from the ball. But here's
what I'm saying, that can be hard to track because
the game, it's a faster paced game. It's not football.
There's not all this time in between downs to break
down a play, and then there's all these games that
are constantly coming at you. Do you think there's anything
to the effect of And I really am promising not
to say that I think anybody is stupid, that's not
my point here, but that there is just an over
saturation of the product on top of all these different
complexities that it's easier to simplify it down to. Well,
the problem with the NBA is this, it's all these
threes rather than is there even time? Because look, we
criticize media partners a bunch, and where media partners receive
a ton of criticism and a lot of it is fair.
You could talk about the game differently, but I think
we're some people have missed the mark. And JJ Reddick's
been a really big advocate for this, and I agree
with a lot of what he recently said, but he's
also come across and maybe we've sometimes too of condescending
of people who don't consume that exact type of content
or watch the game in that way. Is the NBA?
And I'm also not trying to make excuses. I'm not
trying to give the NBA carte blanche and say coverage
is perfect, the game is perfect, and I'm not trying
to call people stupid. But do we just have this
weird expectation of what the game is supposed to be
and even maybe what different types of coverage are supposed
to be? Because when you have eighty two games of
such a like I don't tune into hockey, but like,
are they breaking down like that's a fast paced game?
Are you able to break off all the nuances of
what's happening away from the puck with different players, when
you don't have as much time in between all these
different possessions, when there are so many games coming at you.
I just I find too much of this coming back
to I think, like the NFL being mentioned the ratings
discussions just isn't even worth mentioning there. But when it
comes to what we've seen ESPN like cater do a
certain demographic of NFL where there's this mark coverage, I agree.
I'm just wondering how much that level of coverage resonates
with the normal fan when the time investment I think
would have to be greater because there's not as much
when you're just following a team or trying to cover
the whole league, and there's not as much time in
between games. I think it makes it harder on everyone's
behalf the fans, the media is I think it's just
a little bit more difficult.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's all right.
Speaker 1: I think like so, I agree.
Speaker 2: I thought what JJ Redick said was was mostly right about.
You know, part of the problem with this perception that
the NBA is struggling with viewership or or people are
criticizing style of play has to do with like, you
just don't under you don't get it, and like the
way that it's being talked about is a result of people.
I'm going to be negative about this because I don't
like I don't understand it, and so that's hard to
not conflate with like that is talking down. I would say, like, well,
can't can't We still just defer to the opinions of experts,
of people like JJ Reddick that wanna that understand what's
happening and want to talk about it intelligently and not
knock it because one you don't understand it, and two
it doesn't look like the NBA that you remember best
from from years ago. At the same time, like, if
it were true that the league was actually suffering as
a result of fans not liking the product, then you
can't ignore that anymore. I think, to circle all the
way back, you can't convince me that that the NBA
is struggling because fans don't like the product. I don't
think that's actually a true. That's not a baseline truth
we can start making decisions off of.
Speaker 1: And there's also this is my final thought on the
entire matter, is and as a super peak behind the curtain.
Let's look at how this podcast changed over the past
few months. The amount of time we were investing in
creating shorts, editing them, coming up with ideas for them,
it was exponential. Now we've punted on them and the
whole point of shorts for us. It didn't make us money.
All it did was drive in new members of the
audience that I don't know what the conversion was on.
Are they listening to the content that Grant and I
enjoy consuming if we're consuming other content or creating the
most and we made the active decision to stop, and
it's we're here. I want the show to grow. I
think we're incredibly underrated in my totally unbiased opinion, But yeah,
I want the show to grow. But like, we have
an audience built up over a period of time though
that's the like, those are the people that we want
to reach because they're the people that have been interested
in us for X And I'm not saying the NBA
shouldn't want to draw in new viewership, but do you
think there's something too I'm liking it. Back to Mott,
I shouldn't say your crazed focus on it. I kind
of forced you down the shorts rabbit hole for like
a year, but like that focus on drawing in more
and more and exponential growth. Do you think that's part
of the problem here where it's are we just not
catering enough to the people that do enjoy the game
of basketball? And that might touch upon maybe an excuses
the ratings, but it certainly touches upon like, well, then
there is room for a wholesale shift in coverage.
Speaker 2: Well, it's hard to not talk about it like all
as a piece now, So I would say it would
be a I would be concerned if the league as
a result of believing that fan interest is dropping or
not growing, If the league is convinced that fan interest
is not growing because fans broadly speaking do not like
what the product is anymore, or like too many three's,
whatever criticisms are out there, If the league starts making
rule changes because there is what I think is like
a too vocal of a minority or a minority that
is being too loudly amplified talking about this, this, this,
the criticisms being made about the style or whatever. If
the league makes changes to the product based on that
in the face of I think broader information that it
is in fact growing, then that's really the problem where
you're making decisions because you're you're bending to like the
wrong forces. I think, so, like, yeah, you want to
grow as a product. That's that's especially as with as
many stakeholders as something like the NBA has, and any
any business of any size, you want to grow because
that's just you know, you're growing or you're dying. But
I think that's just not the way to make the
best product all the time. Like right, Like if you
you want to appeal to something to a broader base,
like okay, then everybody becomes the Big Bang theory or whatever,
and you don't have you don't have like you know,
better done TV shows that appeal to a smaller niche
of fans.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think the growth over everything model is a problem,
and I would hope the NBA is smart enough when
I saw I read Adam Silver's comments about it, like
we're taking these we're thinking about these things, We're we're
listening to these concerns about the All Star Game, for example,
we're taking steps. He els their game is an exception
because they are changing it. But that's every that was unanimous.
Everybody agreed it needed to change players apparently.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I viewed what he said as what a smart lawyer
would say, which is, we're taking that under consideration, we're
thinking about this, we hear you. He didn't say anything
other than we're going to look at it and make
the best decisions we can. I think he realizes the
game is doing great and I need to appease people
that disagree, but I'm not going to make any real changes,
and so I just that's kind of how I took that,
and that's kind of how I feel about it overall.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's problematic or do you just write
it off as like Lebron just having about of hypocrisy
where he, like unprompted, brought up the three pointers the
other day that there's too many of them. And I'm
not saying Lebron is right, because I think he's wrong,
but like he's also so he wants that to change back.
There needs to be a change there. But the NBA
then changed the All Star game format and players have
shit all over it. So it's if Lebron Lebron specifically
saying it was bad, and I think he did acknowledge,
like I guess they made change, and change isn't always good.
But at the same time, like you can't say, like
this is wrong, we need to change it, and then
they try to do something to change it and immediately
say it's it's the end.
Speaker 2: I haven't it yet.
Speaker 1: But it's also the NBA Cup. We're two years into it.
It's not going to mean anything, and maybe look, maybe
it flops and you can never get teams to care
about it. But like we can't just say after like
you can't try something, give it in the NBA's lifespan,
give it a millisecond, and then just no, it sucks,
it doesn't work. And so I just wonder if for
even the people that are complaining or think that they
want change, do you think that that I don't know
if that change is going to actually play Kate anyone,
because then there'll be people that are mad that they
made the change to play Kate, these other people that
maybe didn't like Washington League is closely so they're I
want to be clear, I think because people are saying
it when when you do have like maybe the best
player of all time saying it, but then it kind
of falls into the bucket of if you've Lebron is
like in quasi retirement when you hear all these former
players criticize him. The game today is Lebron just entered
that phase of his existence.
Speaker 2: That was my very first thought is that, Yeah, that's
kind of what that felt like to me.
Speaker 1: It's it's an issue because I do think that there
are enough like it's something to talk about. But it's
probably the Adam Silver response. It's like, yeah, we're listening
to it, but that doesn't mean we're going to implement
changes because I don't think the state of the game
is as dire as people think. I think the thing
growth over everything, as you said, And I also just
feel like we probably haven't adjusted our expectations or embraced
nuance the way we should when we're talking about things
such as shot distribution or ratings at a time when
consumption is so decentralized, just so decentralized.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a good way to end it.
Like I just complaints are always going to be aired
louder than like approval. I think generally speaking, that's part
that's maybe that's what we should have started with. Is
it's not news if if Steph Curry comes out and says,
I kind of like how the game has evolved.
Speaker 1: It suits me.
Speaker 2: It's going well, Like I think everybody's contracts are bigger,
We're all making more money.
Speaker 1: That's cool.
Speaker 2: That's never going to get as much amplification as Lebron
saying there's too many threes or Kevin Durant saying the
All Star Game sucks. So that's as a culture, that's
a problem we have in general. But yeah, I just
think let's if you don't like the game as it is,
I think you're in the minority. Just that's what the
numbers and the investments and the skyrocketing revenues and franchise
valuations say. Everybody seems to like the product pretty well.
Doesn't mean you should stop trying to make it as
good as it can be. But let's just be a
little more thoughtful and not quite as reactionary, and let's
be more nuanced about what that means.
Speaker 1: Let us know what you think in the comment section
of that What is Up, Fellows, Tako's I am damn
Valley coming at you all by my loansome to talk
about the one, the only, the wildly disappointing, upsetting your curial.
Whatever you want to call them. Twenty twenty four, twenty
five Sacramento Kings working off their fourth consecutive loss the
Inana Pacers. All of them came at home, and they
include back to back losses to the Los Angeles Lakers,
which is just a weird thing to happen in this economy.
People are sounding the alarm. The alarm was being sounded
even beforehand. There was a report from Tony Jones of
the Athletic and Sam Amik as well that teams are
going to be watching Daron Fox as he comes up
for He's been extension eligible for a while, he declined
one this pass offseason. Teams are wondering whether he is
going to ask for a trade. His agency, Clutch Spoords,
already met with the team, so of course that becomes
headline fodder. I don't read too much nothing. I don't
read too much into the Aaron Fox stuff just now,
but we can get into whether we think that they
should actually be looking at a darn Fox trade independent
of has he asked for out. But he will be
eligible for a four year, two hundred and twenty eight
point six million dollar extension this coming offseason. I still
view that as the most likely reason that he was waiting.
That could of course go up to five years in
three hundred and forty three point three million if he
makes an All NBA team. We'll see if the Kings
are good enough. Where's voting isn't hurt by that, but
he's look, he has the numbers to be In that discussion,
I saw people floating around that the issue is for
the Kings is that the Aaron Fox isn't an All
NBA caliber player, And I just disagree. If you're saying
he's not one of the ten best players in the
NBA and therefore can't be the best player on a contender,
it's not really an insult. They're just so the most
The vast, vast majority of the NBA falls into that bucket.
But there's clearly something going on in Sacramento. And I've
been a proponent of patients with them. Their vitals say
that they could be a better team. When I watch them,
I feel like I see these stretches of they could
be a better team. I think what's most uncomfortable about
where they're at now, which again, as we record this
thirteen and seventeen twelfth place in the Western Conference, their season.
We like to frame things in terms of doom and
gloom and relative to expectations. I know fans are mad,
I know analysts have killed them, and they pretty much
deserve everything for the most part that I have seen said,
they are still just a couple of games in the
lost colmback of the plan, But you don't want to
enter Christmas essentially being four losses out of ten place
in the Western Conference, where the only teams that have
a worse record than you are the New Orleans Pelicans,
who a lot of people can't even if I gave
you five guesses to tell me the three most played
players on that team. I bet you most people would
get it wrong than the Utah Jazz and the Portland
Trail Blazers, neither of whom we're trying to win. Now,
it's a terrible spot in which to be and I
think what's most uncomfortable about it is it's no one issue.
It's a confluence of issues with the players, with the
coaching staff, with the front office. Of course, I think
you could argue that they might deserve the most blame.
And you're sitting there and thinking, Okay, this is a
team that's ninth in offense. Now, even after that disaster
against the Pacers, that was a second half to behold, folks,
if you're a Pacers fan anyway, So your ninth in
offense and your fourteenth in defense filtering out garbage time,
that's not Again, that's not the worst spot spot to be.
And you're still fourteenth in point differential on the season,
so it doesn't look like that's the worst spot to be.
But when you dig into their actual record, it's a
terrible spot to be, and you start to get into
all of the issues that are plaguing them on the court.
And I know a lot of people are citing the
shot profile is an issue. On the offensive end, they
are dead last by a mile in rim and three
point at ten frequency. It also does not help that
Kevin Herder Keegan Murray specifically, they're two most important shooters.
I think you would argue from beyond the arc, you
could throw them a leak monk into there, and de
Aaron Fox, of course, who's below thirty four percent himself.
That stuff all matters, but Keegan Murray and Kevin Herder.
Murray's been mostly down from beyond the arc, where Herder
he's had He's had some injury luck caked in there.
He's been more up and down. But when those dudes
are shooting so poorly from three in net, it diminishes
what was already like a really thin margin for you.
And so when you look at it per one hundred possessions,
the Kings are losing the three pointers made a battle
by about three. It's a little bit less. But so
you're just giving up nine points per one hundred possessions
right there. You're not winning in more of the macro categories.
You're not winning those by enough to just overright that
margin you. And look, some of these buckets will overlap
with one another, but they're a plus two plus zero
point two points per one hundred. When it comes to
turnover scoring versus their opponents, there are plus one point
two points per one hundred. When you get into second
chance opportunities, there are plus two points per one hundred
in transition and a plus three point eight points per
one hundred in the paint. And while DeMar de Rosen
has certainly helped their ability to get to the found line,
there are plus zero point two again in free throws
made per one hundred possessions. Again, some of these can overlap,
certainly the turnover scoring, the points in transition, points in
the paint, but you're not obliterating teams by any of
those margins to where we can just write off and say,
all right, well they're minus nine from three point from
three point range per game. That's not the end of
the world. If you're spotting teams nine points per one
hundred possessions or for an entire game, however you want
to frame it, that's a really big problem. And I
think that's that certainly albed them. And now would they
be in a different position had Kevin Herder and Keegan
Murray played some better games, been hotter from beyond the arc. Yeah,
you're probably talking about a couple extra victories. They're also
a team that they have played more crunch time minutes
than anybody this season. Their record in those spots, which
I think is down to six and twelve, is not great,
and you start to really get concerned there where you
could say, well, that will flip. But at some point
we're getting to the thirty game threshold. Teams are what
they've told us they are, and the Kings are kind
of screaming that they're mediocre and I have issues with
the offense. I think the defense could probably be an
even bigger concern, though, as could some of their rotations.
I mean, I still don't understand the lack of Keon
Ellis Keon Ellis usage here, or at least the inconsistent
deployment of him where it just seems like he can
play a huge role. One game he log against the
Pacers five minutes, and there's just been too many instances
of that or something similar across the board this season.
And I think the top heaviness of the Kings has
also hurt them when you're looking at who their most
important bench players are. Do they go more than seven
trustworthy players? Deep? Absolutely not at this point. I've seen
a lot of people say that, well, Keon Allis, if
he was bigger, it'd be a different story. I don't
care whether you think Keon Elis is six three or
six six. He's still one of your best defensive options.
He's been one of your most effective three point shooters
on wide open looks this year. I get you want
him to be more aggressive. He looked more aggressive, and
I think it was that second Lakers game. Seems like
he was comfortable getting him up. I gain it's frustrating there,
but he also brings something to the table that you're
not getting from well, I mean, let's use Kevin Herder.
It's the low hanging fruit. Let's use Kevin Herder as
an example. Who has been the worst shooter this year,
but just by percentage, Kevin Herder. Who's the worst defender
Kevin Herder. And so that shouldn't even be a debate
in my mind. But let's give credence to this idea
that maybe keon el isn't big enough. This roster construction
isn't new to the front office. You looked at your needs.
I know what Derozen brings to you. Over the offseason.
I thought we were pretty much neutral, saw the risks
other rewards of bringing Tomarto rosen In as that other
shot creator. But to look at this roster and say like,
we don't really need any other wings, then if you
think that Kean Ellis can't qualify as a wing defender
or someone who's gonna log a bunch of minutes for
you consistently, that's on the front office for them doing
what this past offseason. Even use the Devin Carter draft
pick that no one expected them to have because they
didn't think that the Kings were going to be a
lottery team. Last year, you took he's injured, had the
shoulder issues, he might tap you soon. I will always
be skeptical of how rookies fare on really good teams
and how much they lean on. You know, there's for
every Jared McCain, there's just instances of and that's it.
Do you even qualify the Sixers as a good team
before the Jared McCain injury? I have zero idea. But
it's just like Minnesota Timberwolves fans counting on Rob Dialing
Hammer just be the answer as that secondary playmaker, creator,
secondary guard right off the bat in his career, and
Timberwolves has not really used him as such, but it's
been tough sledting when he does. I can't look at
Devin Carter and say, all right, reinforcements are on the
way when he plays. But even more so than that,
if you thought your biggest need was on the wings,
you then drafted another six foot three guard, and so
what is the vision there? And you got to a
point very early on in the season where you felt
it necessary to hit the Jay crowder free agency button,
and that's very uninspiring. And I think this can also
stem back to Okay, you had that just majestic twenty
twenty three campaign, the Kings are back. They pushed the
Rainning champs to seven games and what was one of
the most entertaining first round series in recent memory. And
then you don't really do anything major over the offseason.
You futz in fiddle, get rid of a Shawn Holmes,
you have bring in Sasha va Zankov that backfires. But
to see that your team wasn't as lights out offensively,
I'm looking at last year and then to go through
that season and do absolutely nothing there, to wait until
the offseason to make moves that I think addressed one
of your concerns while creating a bunch other a bunch
of other concerns or exacerbating some of the concerns that
you already have. That's just a monumental failure on the
front offices part. And then you look at Okay, Mike
Brown specifically, I think a ton of blame has to
go to him, just the coaching staff in general, because
is he you can't kill him for the personnel that's available,
but he does not seem like he has optimized the
group that is at his disposal, and the key on
Elis playing time is going to be the harbager of that.
But just leaning on your main guys so much and
still trying to kind of settle on well, who am
I going to go to and what's going to happen
on a night to night basis this late into the year,
when the experimentation isn't going all that well, and when
the numbers all tell us that the Kings are going
to be better with their core lineup. If Keon Ellis
is on the floor, I think you look at the
Kings through the lens of okay, you have Domasa Bonis,
you have Demartrosen, and you have Baron Fox, and you
have Key Murray. Those are kind of your four locks
or your four staples, and who needs to be that
fifth guy in core lineups. We've seen Kevin Herder a bunch,
We've seen Keon Ellis some and we've of course seen
Malik Monk. When you get into all those lineups, the
key on Elis one is most effective by far. It's
also played the least. It's a plus twenty three point
four points per one hundred possessions per creting and glass
when it's on the court. The issue with all of
those lineups, though, is that none of them solve the
math problem. On the offensive end. They are all in basically,
they're all below average when it comes to rim frequency,
and then they're all like in the twentieth percent higher
or lower when it comes to three point frequency. And
only one of those three lineups, I believe it's the
one with Kevin Herder, is even close to league average
when it comes to rim frequency specifically. Otherwise we're looking
at the twentieth percent higher or lower in that category
as well, And so think about that when you're doing
the Kings through. To simplify it even further, they're three
most important lineups where none of them are like giving
you enough offensive firepower from the shots that most And
even though the Kings hit their mid rangers are a
good rate relative to the league average, we all know
how that math problem can come out to bite you,
especially if you're not dominating in other areas, which the
Kings really aren't right now. And you can look at
their defense, and I certainly have at points and I
appreciate a lot of the things they do with the
personnel they have. I do think they do an excellent
job of getting back after they miss jump shots. They
do an excellent job for the most part getting set
after they're making a shot, but they're not like this
super explosive or athletic team, and so on those offensive
possessions where they do get deep into the paint, whether
it's a make or miss, it feels like they're always
lagging on the defensive possession thereafter because they're not back
in time enough. And I think we're getting to a
point where, all right, it's cool that they not cool,
but your fourteenth in points allowed per possession, that's a
fine spot to be if you're a top five offense
or better. They're not that right now. And when you
start to get into what separates you know, ninth from
fifth place, Okay, they might be close, but you look
at the defense and there's just a chance that it's
way worse than what the numbers are. Kind of screaming
at us. Because there's been a lot of issues with
their three point percentage allowed this year, there's definitely something
going on there. They don't give up a ton of
quote unquote wide open looks with defenders being six or
more feet away. But because they're so dead set, since
they know that they don't have great room protectors on
the floor, really, at any given moment in the game,
they're going to sell out to take away those shots,
and that's going to cost them when it comes to
the ground that's covered contesting three point shooters. So they're
twenty sixth in points allowed per spot up possession. That
is really bad. And while their defense might be fourteenth overall,
they're twenty second in half court defense, and they run
into issues guarding the pick and roll all the time.
They're in the bottom five overall pick and roll defense,
and their twenty eighth in points allowed per possession to
the pick and roll ball handler, specifically the crunch time evidence.
Even I've used it as a means to say, okay,
look this team has been close. But now you start
to dig into that a little bit more. And PBP
stats has this really effective tool where you can filter
out possessions by leverage, and so you look at just
high and very high leverage situations, which is simply just
how much do these possessions impact the probability of winning?
So we're looking at the possessions in every game that
impact the probability of winning the most. The Kings were
twenty third in points allowed per possession in those situations.
So the defense isn't holding up, which I think a
lot of the time. Will you kind of look at
their core lineups and they're not on paper even if
you have Kean Ellison Keegan Murray on the floor, depending
on what version of the Aaron Fox you're getting any
given night, are you really supposed to be the only
defensive unit? Still? Those are going to be concerns, And
you knew that these were going to be concerns and
you did nothing to address them, and you could go
to other solutions. I don't know what the most the
most nuclear option, not the most nuclear, maybe the most
nuclear without making a roster change, would be can we
bring to Martin Rosen off the bench and see what
this team looks like in that vein? Politically? Will they
get away with that? Would they be able to do it?
How would de Marta Rosen feel? I have zero idea,
But they're also going to need to find a way.
Then maybe it's starting to roseen and more drastically staggering
the units in in which they're deploying players because one
of the biggest issues for this team when you look
at the offensive end two and they could stand to
be a lot better, is because of the way defenses
are guarding them right now, where you don't have these
caps lock three point threats. In terms of again not
just efficiency, but really high volume on the court. It
makes life harder on anyone you're looking at just like
the shot quality of these players, and you can look
at b Ball Index as a tool where you could
just look at general openness rating you go year over
year for some of the Kings's most important complimentary players
Malik Monk, Kevin Herder, Kean Ellis even and Keigan Murray.
Of course, their openness ratings in the half court from
three point range, they've been yanked down for the most part.
There's some noise in there where Kean Ellis has maybe
seen some better quality opportunities. But that's not good because
you've now increased your overall top end talent on the team,
but you've effectively made life harder for your supporting cast.
While also saying we don't really have the margin for
error to overcome that because we're not deep enough. We're
not versatile enough at any end of the floor to
overwrite two of our top seven players working through whether
you believe they're slumps or in the case of Kevin Herder,
is this just the new normal because of how just
uneven his performance has been quite frankly since the twenty
twenty three playoffs, and you've materially changed the way you're
using some of these guys as well. I mean, look,
Keegan Murray, one of the most underrated defenders in the league,
probably still Kings fans might just be frustrated in general,
but I still just believe that to be true. The
workload that he has shouldered since coming into the league
and done so while like fighting through it and actually
being effective. I don't think anyone had him build for
that coming into the NBA, including the Kings themselves. Is
this an issue of okay, looking what's happening on offense?
Is he gased from everything he's trying to do on defense?
There's also the element of two, though he is being
used differently, the same volume isn't going to be there.
Last year he finished three possessions off of handoffs. That
has been more than halved this year. He's down to
one point four. It's been the same thing basically with
Kevin Herder, where you've seen his handoff frequency decrease by
basically half. And that was always going to be a
potential symptom of getting Tomarta Rosen and kind of shrinking
the floor in theory in the half court even further.
But what have you done to overcome it? It seems
like you're either then playing the wrong guys or you're
not staggering your lineups more aggressively enough and you're leaning
again too heavily on your top players. But you look
at what the Kings have done, and you look at
who's available on the bench in the minutes that they're
giving to Isaac Jones or Kobe Jones, and it's well,
what are they supposed to do? That's where it comes
back to the front office, where this isn't news. Nothing
that has happened that they had the Demarta Rosens missed
a little bit of time relative to the rest of
the league. This is not a team that has been
gutted by injuries. Unless you expected Devin Carter to come
in here and just be excellent right off rip and
I don't know how you could have expected that especially
because they have so many of these let's call them
guards or just non wings who also aren't forwards. Because
if you think that Keon Ellis is too small, do
you just believe that Devin Carter maybe because he was stronger,
he's not going to be too small. I'm not going
to buy that. And so there's an inherent roster construction
flaw here that I think was an issue that we
always could have seen coming. And so you look at
this and you say, okay, yeah, like they're four most
frequent or important complimentary shooters, they're not shooting well on
semi open or open three. So any three that has
a defender four or more feet away. Kiya Murray specifically
on seven open semi open threes this year fifteen point
one percent. That's really bad. And then in general, just
looking at Ellis, he's at thirty one percent on semi
open threes, but he's hitting his wide open threes at
a forty five point five percent clip, so he's bridging
the gap a little bit. A lot of those other
guys they're not doing the same. Even if you're shooting
thirty seven or thirty nine percent on wide open three,
that's like thirty seven percent. I haven't checked this in
a minute, but that's gonna be below league average on
wide open threes, and so to not have maybe have
one or two go to players you can count on
to hit that. Look, even Daron Fox has slumped from
beyond the arc relative to what we know that he
is capable of. And look a lot is on the
shoulders of him and de Rosen and of course sa Bonis,
who has actually been more efficient by and large this year.
But those pieces, all of these pieces together, there is
a level of counterintuition to the way this team is built.
And I don't know the I think the problem here
is you look at them and say, is there one
acquisition that can tie it all together? And the same
names are kind of being bandied about here, Cam Johnson
or Dorian Finney Smith, let's just name all these NETS
players they've been tangentially linked to Kyle Kuzma, and I
think in general, like you're probably at least considering the
right archetype where it's hey, is there someone that could
potentially scale across all three wing positions, the two three four,
specifically on the defensive end. Cam Johnson, to me, of
those three could potentially be the most ideal just because
he gives you a lot of the off ball lethality
plus the three point shooting in general, both volume and efficiency,
and then he's not going to be a sieve on
the defensive end, but he's also not going to check
maybe enough boxes on the defensive end to get you
to say, okay, like that's just our fifth best guy.
And then you also have to get into the problem
of who are they giving up to get these players?
And I think the package that's been bandied about is
Kevin Herder plus stuff picks? Do they need to attach
Trey Lyles to him? What I really do think you
need to consider, though, is you might be fine just
trading Kevin Herder, and okay, are you getting back to
someone who's going to replace enough of his three point
volume to where you're upgrading I guess the defense and
then a net neutral or better from three point range
that would have to be the move. And are you
willing to give up first round equity or more? Because
my guess would be that the Nets don't trade Cam
Johnson for Kevin Herd er Trey Lyles in one first
round pick or any like anything that's equivalent to that,
Are you gonna be prepared to include more when you're
not going to get another star? And so it might
be time for the Kings to maybe consider what would
be more seismic scenarios. Where should they be looking at
moving mo League monk As just because primary salary filler,
super useful to teams could start up certainly on more
than a handful of them. Do you even look at
would there be a market for DeMar de Rosen? Is
it worth kind of seeing? Well, what would it be
like if we tried to I'm not even I'm not
endorsing this, to be clear, I'm just this is stream
of conscious me throwing stuff out. Are they a team
where it's we know Miami is saying that they're not
gonna move Jimmy Butler unless it's for a great offer,
but he's approaching free agency. If they're not looking at
totally rebuild like does the Rosen and Herder and the
other salary to make it work? Going in on a
trade like that maybe make more sense because no, you're
not getting a shooter there, but you're not really hurting
your three point volume anyway. You're helping your defense. You're
giving yourself some of that same optionality on the offensive
end in the half court, and you're kind of just
by virtue of that then ensuring that all right, like
we keep Malik Monk and his importance from the perimeter,
and we keep Kevin Hurder, who is still conceptually important
to their perimeter rotation. I don't expect the Kings to
go down that route. What the Kings can ill afford
to do is nothing. And yet that gets into really
almost an existential question of is this season worth doubling
down on to give up first round equity and more
to try and fix some of these issues knowing that
there's probably not gonna be one player who fixes all
of them. And then the answer to that is, I
don't know. I mean, at this rate, this early into
the season, unless you're bowling a team over, you're probably
gonna have to wait anyway until there's will be different
if giving up a first round pick a little bit
more than a quarter of the way through the season
versus having to wait until February sixth, where it's just
there's less time to correct course here. If you're not
bowling teams over, are they really going to accept your
offer for a Dorian Finney Smith for I don't I
don't love Kak Kuzman here, but for a Cam Johnson,
for a Larry Nance Junior, if you like, that would
be an interesting target for them out of Atlanta. I
don't know if they want to go and get John
Collins where Utah if it's just the offer'st Trey Lyles
and Kevin Herder, would Utah just prefer to wait see
if they can get more out of another team. That
might be an example where okay, it feels a little
bit more doable, But then how much are these moves
that aren't like super Stark going to do for you.
I'm not saying it needs to be on the level
of getting a Jimmy Butler or the names they were
linked to last year, whether it was siakam Rojiannaobi, neither
of whom reportedly wanted to go to Sacramento. I don't
know that they need to be that good. But if
you're not going to go and take a bigger swing,
you need to take a series of like mid end swings.
And so if you leave the trade deadline with Larry
Nance Junior and dory Phinny Smith, let's just say as
just one hypothetical. That's probably okay. You've now deepened your rotation,
you've checked some boxes. Who's going out in that though?
How much better are you if you do go from
Kevin Herder to Dorian and Finney Smith? Are you better
at all? And that's why a lot of these questions
probably should have been more addressed over the off season,
because yes, you have now more information on what your
biggest weaknesses are, but you're kind of in this weird
spot where it's all right, it doesn't make a ton
of sense for us to go all in because we've
been worse than we expected, and yet we can't do
nothing because then we're just consigned to what making this
another not another? Since you didn't consider last year a
gap year, but does this then just become a gap year?
I will say I don't expect anything along the lines
of Wilde Aaron Fox get traded. I would be kind
of surprised if Demarta Rosen got traded to any of
the real nuclear options, whether it involves them going out
and getting another star, or whether it involves oh, we're
hitting the blow up button then starting over. That's not
a decision you make in the middle of the year.
The middle of the year is for the names that
we just mentioned, Where can we just go out and
get a Cody Martin to kind of deepen our defense
of versatility and the outgoing money isn't backbreaking to match?
Do we see? What does it take to get Bouchet
out of Toronto? Is he big enough upgrade over a
trade Lyles for us? Those are the types of moves
that you're basically going to make, especially in a situation
like the Kings where it's like we have Derozen and Fox.
It's a bonus and we're not going to get another
star probably unless we're giving up Keegan Murray. And I'm
certainly not giving up him in a Jimmy Butler trade
right now, just the age the upcoming free agency. That's
not what I was implying by mentioning Jimmy Butler's names.
They're not going to do that, and I don't think
there's a ton of value in doing that right now. Either.
Let's use Fox as the analog here. Let's say he
is getting a little frustrated. Let's say Clutch Sports did
kind of propose the idea of well, like, if things
don't turn around, maybe you should start looking at trade options.
If the Aron Fox X for trade demands a trade, yes,
then you're forced to look at it. But objectively speaking,
teams are going to have more flexibility over the offseason,
certainly in terms of roster spots, definitely in terms of
cat flexibility, and so you're not making people could dream
up all the Darron Fox trades they want. Unless you
believe or have information that he is going to request
a trade. I just don't place a ton of value
in them right now because the Kings will get more
I would think over theseason, even with another year being
ticked off his deal and quote unquote free agency on
the horizon for him. That's not a decision you're making midstream.
And if you go from going after DeMar Derozen to
that without a darn Fox trade request, I would question
just what the general direction of your franchise is. Anyway,
you still need to do something, and I think that's
kind of I think they're obligated to not give up
on this season or kind of let's wait and see
if the pieces figure it out. We now have enough
evidence to say, do I think that this team could
be a little bit better than expected? You even look
at their point differential relative to their record. There's only
one team that has a bigger discrepancy between those two
right now. So, yeah, there's a better team in here somewhere,
but there's a fragile There's a fragile team in here everywhere.
I'm not talking in terms of injuries. I'm just talking
in terms of their ability to win enough of the
mid game on court battles to decidedly be more than
a playing contender in the Western Conference. I think we
now have evidence that their margin for error is never
going to increase unless they do something to change the
makeup of the roster and maybe the way it's run.
I'm not an advocate of firing Mike Brown right now,
but I would say, like I certainly have questions, even
if someone who's not watching every King's game, about the
playing time distribution here and even some of the lineups
that you're going turn out. But I think the real
moral of their story here, or their cardinal sin, is
building a roster where there are clear weaknesses, like among
your top like all your bet like just your best players.
But there's almost this counterintuitive feel to the idea of them,
like the minutes have been fine, but this is not
something you want to say when you're playing Monk with
the other four. So dearon Fox, Malik Monk, demart Row's
and Keige Murray Domasa Bonis, you're winning those minutes by
not even two points per one hundred possessions. And here's
the kicker, You're just below average during those stretches. That's
almost a five hundred possession sample size. There's something you
and you all by the way. You can't talk to me.
I know Malik Monk is higher volume on the offensive end,
but you can't say key On Ellis is too small
and then be like, well, the answer is like we
can play those five together. There's something that feels inherently
uneven about that, and maybe that's being complicated by the
fact that they're not in at least elite offensive unit
together just yet. So I would argue they've overachieved defensively
either in the forty six percentile defensively with those five
on the floor, and there is one above average defender
in that group, you could make the case for dearon
Fox there's one certain above average defender in Keegan Murray,
So that's where they're at and it's something that I
think they could have foreseen, and a lot of people
did foresee over the offseason after making the DeRozan move,
even more so before making the Derozean move. But I
think it's in paramount for this team and even their
fans to not treat this as just well, there's the
either or of or there's a bunch of different options
where we might just need to blow it up. And
I'll be more willing to entertain that if more reporting
comes out on the dearon Fox front that he doesn't
want to be there. I just don't buy that he
doesn't want to be there. I think that story is
more way of putting pressure on the Organis to do
exactly what I believe is they're only option, and that's
you're not doing anything MEGA. You're going out there and
you're trying to expand your rotation. Look, if you're not
gonna use Keon Ellis, then use him as an asset
in another deal to get someone that you're prepared to
pay play twenty five to thirty minutes a game. Then,
but you have to get I would say, another two
playable bodies on this team, like real playable bodies can
be in your playoff rotation, can certainly be in your
regular season rotation. I think the areas in which those
need to come are just pretty clear. It's more, it'd
be cool if it's a combo big where can you
get away with a Larry h junior at the four
and the five. But it's if it's even just a
matter of backup center. If this team just suddenly said
that you're able to take a flyer on Robert Williams
the third and I floated this to the Kings in
the past, not gonna play a ton of minutes. You
don't really want him playing with the bonus. That's fucking fine,
because you just need upgrades kind of in the reserve
four or five area, and then certainly in the combo
wing area just across the two, three, four. If you
get someone who can check, you know, let's say you
get I don't know who would be the best option here.
It's it's either Dorian Phinney Smith or Cam Johnson among
the most gettibles. But if you get someone who can
defensively play across the maybe like the two and a half,
like it's fringe when you're getting to some guards. But
the two three, four. It then allows you to be
wide in your scope when it comes to the five.
Whereas we don't necessarily need a tru room protector, we
don't need someone who else needs to play the four,
though we go after more of a pure five in
that respect, but you need two more playable bodies. And
you don't get to use the excuse of we're worse
than expected. We're we're not going to throw good money
after bad. You've built a team that needs to have
some sort of an immediate window. And if you go
a second year in a row of just disappointing return,
not even making the playoffs, and at this rate you're
not even going to make the play in inexcusable. And
so the time to act would be now. And I'm
not saying be irresponsible with what you're offering, but you're
not out of trade chips to play. My guests would
be they're not going to want to pay the tax
this year. So you're using that as maybe the hard
and fast cut off of they only have two point
one million dollars under the tax, they're not going to
take in any more money after that. They have five
point nine million under the first apron. If that you
know is something that's going to matter. Does give them flexibility.
They have future picks they could trade. Even with that
protected one heading to Atlanta this year, Devin Carter might
still have some intrigue, although you're likely trading him at
the nadea of his value because he's injured and as
of right now hasn't played just yet. You have matching salaries,
and some of them are uncomfortable. But aside from Fox
Murray and some bonus, I'm still there's no one on
this roster that I'm just viewing as completely untouchable. Ellis
would come close because of his salary, but if you're
not going to play him consistently, you need to explore
what's out there. And I just don't see the value
in Waiting anymore. I think clearly I was probably I
thought I was too low on this team entering the season,
and then I overcorrected, and I still think there's a
better team in there overall, based off some of the
games that we've seen, some of the stretches I've watched,
and then of course some of the data that you
can just see in the macro. But this team has
to do something. It's at def Con two. I don't
think it's necessarily def Con one because that's what you
consider any and all scenarios. I do think it's important
to couch it by saying we're not in the realm
of unless you really just believe if you're a title
or bust mentality, which I know a lot of people are.
I don't necessarily watch or cover the league that way,
So I'm not gonna say, well, they might as well
blow it up or go all in for Jimmy Butler,
because otherwise what are they doing. There's like there can
be a happy medium in between, and you can let
things marinate and see if you get lucky breaks elsewhere.
And that's the line that the Kings need to tow.
And I think you can argue they did it over
the offseason. They did it imperfectly, and it was on
delay because that the fact that they made no moves
last year during the middle of the season was was criminal.
If you're if you're a fan of that franchise and
you can't do the same thing now, you operate as
buyers until I would say semi aggressive buyers, just intuitive buyers,
until that you know this season has gone off the rails.
Like for good and I don't think they're at that point.
But if you let it get to that point again,
that's gonna fall. It falls on everybody. But I'm starting
from the top down there, and that's gonna go to
the front office and then to the coaching staff and
of course the players who look some of them just
you can't force Kevin Hurder to make more threes and
the Keegan Murray the shooting splits there. You can't necessar
force that to be better either. But I also keep
coming back to the fact that life feels a lot
more difficult for a lot of the supporting cast members,
even if they're not having to generate as much of
their own looks. The quality just isn't there. You could look,
I mean Keithan Murray's shot quality and transition and at
the rim this year, night and day compared to last year.
And that is a personnel issue, which I think, really
you could talk about whatever lineups you want to play.
I really need that has more to do with the
front office than anybody else. Let me know what you
think the King should do, whether it's in the YouTube
comments or join our disport and come talk there. The
link that's the podcast, the description. Remember please to subscribe
to us as always if you have not done so,
already pumping out content around these parts all the time
until next time, and as always I leave cancel one
the only frank Niordina, and happy holidays to whichever one
that you sell.