He has no need to worry about being another lillard, he's not even close to being close to being in that group of players. I'm not worried if he gets it, i hope he does because i don't want him. It's not that impossible for him to make 3rd team all nba because of how many guys will miss the 65 game mark. If he's eligible for it he will 100% resign in sac, obviously.
He looks checked out cuz his team sucks and is going nowhere. He won the NBA first clutch award its not like this is the norm for him. Personally I am ok getting Fox if he comes at a low price. Sengun is 22, Amen and Jabari are 21. We have time till these 3 grow up and seeing if Fox is the guy to round them out is worth a gamble. We have a year to see if he fits and if he doesnt we use his contract to trade for Booker. Two things I've seen this season is Ime needs a really strong pg and we have outgrown FVV. Fox isnt that great a shooter but he can still shoot at 33%. What I like though is he is 58% TS despite playing with no 3 pt shooters.Its like he is meant to play in Udoka offense cuz even if he is surrounded with brickers and a post threat in Domantas he can still score efficiently. At the end of the day he is an upgrade to FVV and his current contract is cheaper than Sengun's extension. If Rockets can get him for cheap Stone should go for it IMO, its a low risk high reward move and tbh if we trade for Booker pairing Fox with KD is more appealing to the Suns than FVV and KD.
Fox is better than current Lillard. 3rd team all nba and you dont want him? Bro its not like we have a plethora of all nba players on this team guaranteed. You realize he turned down a 5 yr max deal from Sacramento right? You are trying to make Fox all about the money when he turned down 250+M to go to a better situation. The max is 30% of the cap, the super max is 35% of the cap. Why would you gamble and turn down guaranteed 30% for an additional 5%? If Fox was that greedy for money he would have taken the 165 max extension last year. Look at Chris Paul dude would rather get paid 10M on the Spurs than get a vet min and chase a ring.
He didn’t turn down a 5 year deal, he turned down a 3 year extension so he could try to make all nba and get a supermax. He’s a one time allstar, so no i don’t want him on a 30% max, not even close. There’s no scenario where he will deserve to make all nba, he just might because of the 65 game rule and because humans vote. He’s also not even close to current lillard also, that’s a pretty insane thing to say.
yeah I think this comes down to risk assessment. I think others might assess the risk of sitting on assets as an equivalent risk. Can totally see why you see higher risk though. I’m ambivalent as I think there’s valid risk to moving on a guy like Fox and valid risk for waiting for the super max player that exceeds the value of the max contract. I don’t think Fox handcuffs us and I do think the appropriate play is to make incremental upgrades where ever possible to maintain asset value and flexibility should such a player become available. I think Fox can fit that range but can also understand why you think he would be negative trade asset down the line. (It’s not outlandish, just not a certainty imo).
It also depends on what the trade is. Is it fvv straight up for fox? Or is it fvv, 2-3 firsts, cam/reed for fox. I would consider it straight up (wouldn’t do it probably), but for what a realistic trade package would be i would not consider it for a second. There’s also zero risk of not getting him, since we know he doesn’t move the needle.
I think I like Fox more than most of y'all--he led the Kings to the 3rd-best record in the West two years ago and deservedly made All-NBA that season. His shooting and defense have improved over the past few seasons. He's a better playmaker than his box scores show, too, I think. Their system gives Sabonis a lot of the assist opportunities at Fox's expense. (That would also be true here with Alpi, to some degree, to be fair.) The Kings' problem has always been their defense. We certainly do not have that issue. Yes, the fit is somewhat questionable given that Fox is not a great floor-spacer. But I think if we locked in on building around him, Amen, and Sengun we could at least know exactly what we need around them--shooting, shooting, shooting--and re-tool the roster around getting it. I think that's a big three that could be championship caliber. We would definitely need to move on from Jalen ASAP and replace him with an elite-shooting 3-and-D guy, and we'd need another Jabari, a flexible tall guy to back up the 4 and the 5 who can shoot. I think it's workable from a roster construction standpoint. Fox is more of an average shooter than a bad one now.
Yeah I think you have 2 points of risk 1) The cost to acquire 2) the movability of his next contract. I agree on the cost part. Wouldn’t move much for him but if he can be had for a discount I’d definitely consider it. I don’t think there’s 0 risk is staying pat. I think this is a league that favors risk takers (calculated risk). That said, my risk profile is higher than most others and that has been successful for me and costly as well. I appreciate others who have a more conservative risk profile as I can be a lose canon when it comes to risk/reward and opportunity cost.
It's already been pointed out that he turned down the Sacramento deal to maximize his money. Also, Fox has not been better than current semi-washed 34yo Damian Lillard. Fox 26/6/5 on 48/32/80, 57% TS +2.1 EPM Lillard 26/8/5 on 45/37/92, 63% TS +2.7 EPM I don't know whether it's the local ties or whether people just like the aesthetics of Fox's game, but he's in the ~7th-10th best PG in the league range at his peak right now and IMO pretty clearly in the Wall / Beal / Kemba / Jamal Murray tier of "stars" who you absolutely do not want to give a max third contract to. Those have all been franchise millstones basically from the moment they were signed.
They were never really in the race for Fox. Every year, any significant player is rumored to the Lakers, and they end up with role players like Rui, Vanderbilt and now DFS. League is desperately trying to keep the Lakers relevant. Will come down to the Spurs and Rockets. Always the potential of a suprise third team, but they would be hard-pressed to beat a serious offer from one of the Texas teams.
I think "are we better with Fox" isn't the right question to ask, it's possible that we're better with Fox and it's still a bad trade. We've seen a lot of examples of teams adding overpaid second tier stars and getting better, but also going nowhere. Did Chicago get better when they added DeRozan and Vucevic? You can stack up these second tier stars but your ceiling is a second round exit. The right question to ask is whether it gets us closer to a championship, and that's not the same thing as just getting better. I personally go back and forth on adding Fox, I'm still really undecided, but its important to ask the right question.
In a league where Boston just won a chip with everyone shooting threes and where nearly every PG can shoot, the Rockets lack almost any decent shooters. A Fox trade would be doubling down on our biggest weakness. We need to use our trade assets to find a star who can shoot, period.
He turned down the 3 yr extension last year to maximize his money. He turned down the 4/5 yr extension this year not because of the money. Look at their teammates and what conference Lillard is playing in. Its crazy he is putting up the same stats as Lillard when he is playing in the West and with virtually no 3 pt shooting and he is on par with Dame time. He is way better than guys like Beal or Murray IMO. Beal, Murray and Lillard are all useless if their shot isn't falling. Fox still a great scorer even if he is surrounded by clankers and he himself can't shoot 3s. Everyone keeps talking about Fox making the max but if he isn't worth the max trading him is still an option. No matter what you think of Fox he is a better asset than FVV and Fox+stuff can get you Booker or Ant or whoever more than FVV+stuff.
I get what you are saying but assuming we don't give up the farm for Fox not really sure what the downside is. He is on a 2 yr deal way below the max if he sucks we can trade him or use him as the salary filler for Booker or whoever star is available.
You mean like Reed Sheppard ot FVV? We need guys who can score despite bad shooting. Fox isn't a great shooter but he is also not a bad shooter. He is an average shooter. Despite that he is an elite scorer. Getting him means even if his shot is broken (something that happens with Rox players all the time) he will still be a good scorer.
Yeah I guess it would depend on the trade and also the followup contract. I think the fact that he turned down the extension from sac means that he's after a lot of money, I don't think he would accept a trade unless it was to a destination that assured him that they would offer him a max/supermax or whatever. On top of that I think it would cost a lot to get him, we'd probably have to give up at least one promising young piece (Tari?) and also some picks. It's not like we could just grab him for free. But this is all assumptions, I'm just guessing what it would look like.
Yeah everything depends on the details of the trade. But at the same time this is the kings they prob won't ask for a lot depending on Ranadive's mood. I'm pretty sure Sacramento are offering him a full 5 yr extension if he was just after the money he would sign the extension first and then make trade demands later. That's what Beal and other people do. IIRC he signed with Klutch and the first thing Klutch did is have a meeting with the Sacramento FO and asked them what their future plans are to contend, not really about getting Fox a max extension.
Fox made it known he didn't extend because he questioned the Kings ability to build a legit, long term contender. Sure, he wants to get paid the max like every player (just not by Sacramento). Whoever trades for him is signaling they will accommodate.
He's not eligible for even a 4 year extension until summer of 2025, so no he hasn't turned it down. You don't know what you're talking about. There is no Fox trade without a pre-agreed max extension. That's how this works. If there were no extension he'd just be an expiring unrestricted free agent who'd walk to LAL or MIA who'd both have the cap space for him. There is no Fox+stuff if you trade for Fox. It costs the "stuff" (i.e., PHX picks and young players) to trade for Fox lol.
