Mastodon
@National Basketball Association

[Lowe] Sabonis is really good, & Fox is thriving as undisputed lead ball handler. The Kings are solid. But Haliburton is four years younger than Sabonis, much further from unrestricted free agency, with a game that’s easier to fit onto an elite team. He might be the flat-out better player already.



[Link to Article](https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/35159727/lowe-10-things-mvp-wizardry-stephen-curry-plea-mavericks-how-light-jog)

> Some revisiting of the Haliburton-Domantas Sabonis trade has framed it as a win-win. *Eh.* The shrieking “same old Kings” criticism at the time of the trade was overblown, but this win-win revisionism is an overcorrection.

>Sabonis is really good, and De’Aaron Fox is thriving as undisputed lead ball handler. The Kings are solid – as they should be considering their win-now temperament. But Haliburton is four years younger than Sabonis, much further from unrestricted free agency, with a game that’s easier to fit onto an elite team. He might be the flat-out better player already.

>The Kings getting the short-term boost they sought doesn’t change the underlying dynamics behind the trade. Even if both teams “won,” there are degrees of “winning.”

by lopea182

31 Comments

  1. The fit with Fox didn’t work. Haliburton and Fox are both thriving now BECAUSE of the trade. Get tf over it

  2. KnoxsFniteSuit

    Lowe forgot to mention how smart coach Mike is

  3. Why can’t this trade be a win-win? It worked out for both teams so people need to let it the fuck go already

  4. My thing, if arguing on behalf of the Kings, is that hypothetically it’s much easier to find/draft/develop a defensively stout PG with strong passing ability(Spurs did it with DJM).

    Whereas if you’re looking for an All-Star big man with incredible passing ability from the inside out, then your options are basically Jokic and Sabonis.

    One role functions within most conventional offenses and can be utilized by almost any team to make them better. (Haliburton)

    The other needs to be schemed around but is nearly unstoppable from a defensive perspective if you’re able to play around your distributing big. (Sabonis.)

  5. contemporaryAmerica

    The bane of fan commentary existence: “what if ( ) was in this system or had this coach or played in this era or could be a little bit taller, become a baller, and have a girl who looked good so they could call her. Gtfo…. Analyze actual games, offensive possessions, outcomes of trades… stop with the hypotheticals. I’ll stop yelling at clouds.

  6. junkit33

    It was a terrible trade at the time, looks even worse now, and will probably look much worse in the future. They should have moved Fox instead of Haliburton.

    This Kings team is fun because we expect so little of them, but it’s still probably a play-in team and certainly no better than a first round exit.

    Meanwhile, Haliburton is a guy you can build a contender around in a couple of years. He’s a near flawless PG for today’s game.

  7. The trade is a win win, it doesn’t matter if the Kings miss the playoffs again and Sabonis leaves in UFA in two years, it’s been decided find a new slant

  8. Resident_Frame

    I may be alone, but I don’t buy that Hali and Fox couldn’t have figured it out together.

  9. SYNERGY. Hali could be the better individual player but basketball is a team game. Sabonis fits well with the team and his points generated from screens is bonkers. For now, both teams made out great.

  10. MindofShadow

    Pacers 100% won that trade.

    But

    Doesn’t mean it was a “bad” trade for the Kings if they get to the playoffs.

    Not every franchise has title aspirations. Kings have been painfully bad for so long that just getting into the damn playoffs a few times is 100% a win.

    The only “bad” thing about trading Hali was not causing a bidding war.

    But this is such a dead horse it is stupid at this point.

  11. Wavepops

    im getting someone better than sabonis if im trading Halliburton and I think Domas is really good, I also think fox is really good, but I think haliburton will be the better player if hes not now

  12. DontToewsM3Bro

    How about it being a win win deal for both teams?

    Its early in the season but it looks like Kings will finally see the playoffs again

    And Praces seem they got a good piece for their future (very early who knows what can happen)

  13. transizzle

    I really love Haliburton but he’s not a high end star. He’d be an awesome sidekick to a star and I agree he’s an easier fit – but people talk about him like he’s a future MVP and he’s not.

  14. SnooHamsters1815

    Agree with Lowe I think at the time it was a win-win but now Halliburton is playing like the best guard in the east

  15. batmans420

    I mean he’s not wrong but they probably did need to trade one of them. Either way I think it’s stupid to endlessly debate who won this trade when it happened less than a year ago lol

  16. RandorMan321

    Fox is one of the most underrated players in the league from what I see. He’s improved on everything people could legitimately criticize, he’s better on defense in the games I’ve seen, he’s shooting 39% from 3, and his ft shooting is above 80%. Him being able to have the keys to the kingdom as well as gain someone like Sabonis who has synergy with the Kings as a team is massive, it makes all their players look better.

  17. ZeroShins

    I think if your criteria for evaluating a trade is based on who got the best player on the best contract, then yes, the Pacers came out ahead.

    But 20 games in, so far (knock on wood) it looks like the Kings traded a good player for a good *team*.

    The bottom line is that it would have been way more difficult to build around Haliburton for Sacramento because all of their other trade assets could not have fetched desirable complementary pieces. Ultimately they possibly could have built a winning team with Haliburton, but not without either 1) being a bad team for a few more years, which would require a lot of patience that fans and the organization didn’t have, or 2) a huge gamble by trading draft picks for players as a lottery team, which could possibly set the organization back even further if it didn’t work out.

  18. mr_robust

    Lowe is a desk jockey who doesn’t understand basketball

    It’s 10x harder finding a big like Saboner than a guard like Halliburton

  19. paddiction

    Kings had to break their playoff curse. Who cares if Hali is the better, cheaper player.

  20. Current_Customer7735

    As a Sixers fan I still find myself wondering what this season, and last, might have been like if Morey had decided/been offered a flip of Simmons for Haliburton and one of Hield/Barnes plus a pick.

    I have never found myself wondering about Sabonis

  21. savetheplastic

    I get what Lowe is saying here. 10 years from now or whatever the Pacers have a good chance to be in a much better position because of this trade than the Kings do. But to me the Kings had to trade Fox or Haliburton, they were not good together. Fox was coming off of a bad year, was older than Haliburton and had a much, much bigger player friendly contract. I think they could either trade Fox at below value and just try to tank and build around Haliburton, something they are terrible at doing, or make the trade they did and build the foundation for a good not great team for the next several years. I do think that the Pacers have a better shot at a title with Haliburton (eventually of course) than the Kings do with Fox and Sabonis, but this was the Kings best chance to build a fun and respectable team and I cannot fault them for that.

  22. jambr380

    It seemed like an odd and desperate trade at the time, but also understandable. The Kings were terrible with Fox and Hali together so they determined they needed to trade one of them. Since they would have been lucky to get an expiring contract and a late 1st for Fox, they moved Hali for an actual young All-Star (lower tier, but still).

    Again, it was an odd move without a lot to gain from the Kings side, but this is basically the best case scenario for them. Fox is balling, Sabonis has proven to be a great fit, and they are actually winning games. Hard to fault them right now at least.

  23. _retard_strong_

    There doesn’t have to be an undisputed trade winner. Shit worked for both teams, net positive for Sacramento and Indiana both.

  24. FirstTimeLongThyme

    “Even if both teams “won,” there are degrees of “winning.””

    Sooooooooooooo win/win?

  25. ChamBruh

    Sabonis and Haliburton would be great but I don’t think the kings could have traded fox+buddy for sabonis. Given that sabonis and fox work really well together and apparently fox and haliburton did not, I think it’s fine

  26. Just a win-win trade overall, and people thought it would be loss-lose last year

  27. Gristle__McThornbody

    Isn’t Haliburton also on a rookie contract? Probably the main reason you would rather keep Haliburton instead.

  28. thetimedied

    Kings won, the best case scenario for kings if they kept Haliburton would be Washington with Wall and Beal.

  29. brucewayne1935

    This is the way I see it; as a fan of a team that has almost always been competitive, has a winning record, and makes the playoffs, watching your team compete is fun even if they aren’t winning the Finals. Let Kings fans have this. Let them enjoy a season where they’re actually winning.

  30. bobby_jackson_GOAT

    lmao “degrees of winning” – even when the kings win they don’t win good enough in national media’s eyes

Write A Comment