Haliburton Sabonis trade, relate to JB JT

[KG Living Legend]

 Fox is an amazing point guard, Haliburton is probably better. That Hally was my guy in that draft. Sabonis for Haliburton was a historical trade, pretty rare nowadays 1 for 1 player. Straight up.

 I think the packets won the trade,  got the better younger player,  but The kings aren't complaining either.

 The kings made the trade because two point guards that are excellent and need the ball are redundant.  Kinda like Brown and Tatum. 

 I think a trade for Brown with Sengun as the centerpiece makes sense for Boston.  Thompson I would want as well.

 I'd like to hear from the board on thoughts on the kings pacers trade. From the kings perspective. Would you have traded Fox instead.  Guessing the pacers didn't want Fox for Sabonis,  but surely they could have traded Fox for a great package.

[Moranis]

It wasn't really a 1 for 1 trade as it was Haliburton, Hield,and Thompson for Sabonis, Holiday, Lamb, and a furue 2nd (Jordan Walsh). Given Hield is the 3rd most impactful player in the trade, the Pacers definitely came out ahead.

[KG Living Legend]

It wasn't really a 1 for 1 trade as it was Haliburton, Hield,and Thompson for Sabonis, Holiday, Lamb, and a furue 2nd (Jordan Walsh). Given Hield is the 3rd most impactful player in the trade, the Pacers definitely came out ahead.

 Even besides the throw ins. Pacers won because Haliburton is better. Sabomis is already on the slight decline Imo. Still really good but at his peak.

[Who]

It wasn't really a 1 for 1 trade as it was Haliburton, Hield,and Thompson for Sabonis, Holiday, Lamb, and a furue 2nd (Jordan Walsh). Given Hield is the 3rd most impactful player in the trade, the Pacers definitely came out ahead.

 Even besides the throw ins. Pacers won because Haliburton is better. Sabomis is already on the slight decline Imo. Still really good but at his peak.

Not much of a fan of Sabonis. I still feel his stat-line greatly overstates his actual impact on the floor.

[Moranis]

It wasn't really a 1 for 1 trade as it was Haliburton, Hield,and Thompson for Sabonis, Holiday, Lamb, and a furue 2nd (Jordan Walsh). Given Hield is the 3rd most impactful player in the trade, the Pacers definitely came out ahead.

 Even besides the throw ins. Pacers won because Haliburton is better. Sabomis is already on the slight decline Imo. Still really good but at his peak.

Not much of a fan of Sabonis. I still feel his stat-line greatly overstates his actual impact on the floor.

The numbers support that as well.  Sabonis is a secondary or tertiary player.  Haliburton is either a primary or secondary.  Haliburton is obviously the primary guy in Indy, I just don't know if he can be a true primary player on a real contender as he matures into his peak.

The real question on that trade is three-fold.  First, what could the Kings have gotten for Fox at the time.  Second, was Haliburton going to want to stay there long term. Third, had they waited, would they have gotten more than Sabonis for Haliburton. 

[Surferdad]

...
 The kings made the trade because two point guards that are excellent and need the ball are redundant.  Kinda like Brown and Tatum. 
...

I don't see a good analogy here. Two true point guards like Haliburton/Fox is indeed redundant, but neither Brown nor Tatum are point guards.

[KG Living Legend]

...
 The kings made the trade because two point guards that are excellent and need the ball are redundant.  Kinda like Brown and Tatum. 
...

I don't see a good analogy here. Two true point guards like Haliburton/Fox is indeed redundant, but neither Brown nor Tatum are point guards.

 You don't see the point? It's well documented that Tatum is the guy. We are atll an excellent team with Brown off the floor. Plenty of evidence of that. 

 However with Brown on the court and Tatum off, we are not a good team. Brown doesn't make Tatum better.  If we could trade Brown for a player that compliments Tatum,  probably worth it.

[Kernewek]

...
 The kings made the trade because two point guards that are excellent and need the ball are redundant.  Kinda like Brown and Tatum. 
...

I don't see a good analogy here. Two true point guards like Haliburton/Fox is indeed redundant, but neither Brown nor Tatum are point guards.

 You don't see the point? It's well documented that Tatum is the guy. We are atll an excellent team with Brown off the floor. Plenty of evidence of that. 

 However with Brown on the court and Tatum off, we are not a good team. Brown doesn't make Tatum better.  If we could trade Brown for a player that compliments Tatum,  probably worth it.

Keeping in mind we can't trade Brown until next year, what do we do with a swap that creates something of a backlog in the frontcourt, or our resulting lack of depth at the guard and wing?

So, let's say our lineup remains identical to what it is right now, minus JB, but with the addition of our Center or Big Man of the Future (COTF)...

Here's ESPN's depth chart, but with that substitution:
https://www.espn.com/nba/team/depth/_/name/bos
5: CoBMotF, Horford, Queta, Kornet,
4: Kristaps,Horford, Brisset, Kornet,
3: Tatum, Hauser, Svi,
2: White, Holiday, Prichard
1: Holiday, Prichard, White, Banton

This still feels real thin to me. Maybe that doesn't matter, but I am not convinced that there are enough decent guys to spell White, Holiday, and Tatum to make up for this center unless he's a serious, serious talent.

In keeping with the theme of the thread, for example, I am not sure slotting Sabonis in here makes much difference overall.

[Moranis]

...
 The kings made the trade because two point guards that are excellent and need the ball are redundant.  Kinda like Brown and Tatum. 
...

I don't see a good analogy here. Two true point guards like Haliburton/Fox is indeed redundant, but neither Brown nor Tatum are point guards.

 You don't see the point? It's well documented that Tatum is the guy. We are atll an excellent team with Brown off the floor. Plenty of evidence of that. 

 However with Brown on the court and Tatum off, we are not a good team. Brown doesn't make Tatum better.  If we could trade Brown for a player that compliments Tatum,  probably worth it.

Keeping in mind we can't trade Brown until next year, what do we do with a swap that creates something of a backlog in the frontcourt, or our resulting lack of depth at the guard and wing?

So, let's say our lineup remains identical to what it is right now, minus JB, but with the addition of our Center or Big Man of the Future (COTF)...

Here's ESPN's depth chart, but with that substitution:
https://www.espn.com/nba/team/depth/_/name/bos
5: CoBMotF, Horford, Queta, Kornet,
4: Kristaps,Horford, Brisset, Kornet,
3: Tatum, Hauser, Svi,
2: White, Holiday, Prichard
1: Holiday, Prichard, White, Banton

This still feels real thin to me. Maybe that doesn't matter, but I am not convinced that there are enough decent guys to spell White, Holiday, and Tatum to make up for this center unless he's a serious, serious talent.

In keeping with the theme of the thread, for example, I am not sure slotting Sabonis in here makes much difference overall.

I actually think Sabonis would do a lot for the offense given how good a passer he is.  Sabonis and Barnes for Brown and Brissett makes sense.  I also think if Sacto ends up keeping its lottery pick a trade involving the lottery pick and a future pick, Huerter, Lyles, and Barnes for Brown makes at least some sense (assuming Boston has a guy in mind for the lottery pick).  That is a definitely a lesser of parts type trade, but if Boston flames out and is looking to shake things up, I think that sort of trade would make sense. You get a lesser Brown in Huerter, 2 vets for bench depth, the lottery pick, a future 1st, and a whole lot more long term financial flexibility. 

[Vermont Green]

I think SAC did this trade to balance their roster.  As others have said, you don't need both Fox and Haliburton.  Fox was more proven.  You know what you had in Fox.  There was still some uncertainty with Haliburton.  Sabonis is a really good big, a hard thing to find in the NBA.  No, he isn't Jokic, but he is still really good and made SAC better.  They improved dramatically.

As to the Tatum-Brown being analogous to Fox-Haliburton, if anything, it is more like having Holiday and White.  Nearly every team plays with two wings and have forever.  You generally call it a SG and a SF.  Jordan and Pippen of course being the quintessential example of this.  I don't know of very many teams that play with two PGs or a PG and a combo guard.  Even playing two combo guards is far from ideal.

[celticsclay]

...
 The kings made the trade because two point guards that are excellent and need the ball are redundant.  Kinda like Brown and Tatum. 
...

I don't see a good analogy here. Two true point guards like Haliburton/Fox is indeed redundant, but neither Brown nor Tatum are point guards.

 You don't see the point? It's well documented that Tatum is the guy. We are atll an excellent team with Brown off the floor. Plenty of evidence of that. 

 However with Brown on the court and Tatum off, we are not a good team. Brown doesn't make Tatum better.  If we could trade Brown for a player that compliments Tatum,  probably worth it.

Keeping in mind we can't trade Brown until next year, what do we do with a swap that creates something of a backlog in the frontcourt, or our resulting lack of depth at the guard and wing?

So, let's say our lineup remains identical to what it is right now, minus JB, but with the addition of our Center or Big Man of the Future (COTF)...

Here's ESPN's depth chart, but with that substitution:
https://www.espn.com/nba/team/depth/_/name/bos
5: CoBMotF, Horford, Queta, Kornet,
4: Kristaps,Horford, Brisset, Kornet,
3: Tatum, Hauser, Svi,
2: White, Holiday, Prichard
1: Holiday, Prichard, White, Banton

This still feels real thin to me. Maybe that doesn't matter, but I am not convinced that there are enough decent guys to spell White, Holiday, and Tatum to make up for this center unless he's a serious, serious talent.

In keeping with the theme of the thread, for example, I am not sure slotting Sabonis in here makes much difference overall.

I actually think Sabonis would do a lot for the offense given how good a passer he is.  Sabonis and Barnes for Brown and Brissett makes sense.  I also think if Sacto ends up keeping its lottery pick a trade involving the lottery pick and a future pick, Huerter, Lyles, and Barnes for Brown makes at least some sense (assuming Boston has a guy in mind for the lottery pick).  That is a definitely a lesser of parts type trade, but if Boston flames out and is looking to shake things up, I think that sort of trade would make sense. You get a lesser Brown in Huerter, 2 vets for bench depth, the lottery pick, a future 1st, and a whole lot more long term financial flexibility.

Pretty sure this trade would lead to Tatum demanding a trade

[jay]

2025 trade deadline - what if there was a trade involving Brown for Sengun and Dillon Brooks. Assuming Sengun signs a big extension this off-season.

[jay]

Th

 I think a trade for Brown with Sengun as the centerpiece makes sense for Boston.  Thompson I would want as well.

 I'd like to hear from the board on thoughts on the kings pacers trade. From the kings perspective. Would you have traded Fox instead.  Guessing the pacers didn't want Fox for Sabonis,  but surely they could have traded Fox for a great package.

Also, a year from now we probably have to throw in picks to get Sengun in a Brown trade since they are picking up so much salary and Sengun might be a monster by then.

[obnoxiousmime]

This trade doesn't seem realistic. Why would Houston deal their center of the future and engine of their offense for another scorer who doesn't facilitate? Not to mention Brown is much older and much more expensive going forward.

The Pacers were more comfortable dealing Sabonis because they already had Myles Turner on the roster and Haliburton would easily replace Sabonis' playmaking. The Rockets have no such replacement for Sengun.

[Muzzy66]

...
 The kings made the trade because two point guards that are excellent and need the ball are redundant.  Kinda like Brown and Tatum. 
...

I don't see a good analogy here. Two true point guards like Haliburton/Fox is indeed redundant, but neither Brown nor Tatum are point guards.

The point seems clear to me. 

Brown and Tatum are not point guards, no.  But they are both big wing players with very similar overall games and very similar strengths / weaknesses. 

They both need the ball in their hands to be most effective (Tatum less so, as he can impact the game in other ways, but he's still at his best when scoring well) and they are both primarily perimeter-oriented, ISO heavy players. 

I think they are very much CAPABLE of being great compliments for each other with the skill sets they have, but for that to happen one of them would need to freely accept a role as a more complimentary player (focussing primarily on defence, hustle, rebounding, scoring off the ball) and less on ball heavy iso play.  I'm not yet sure if either one of them would ever be willing to voluntarily accept that role for the greater good of the team.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't think they can play together, or that I don't think the team can be great with them playing together.   I still think the team can be excellent with those two guys playing as they do right now.  I just think that for the team to truly reach it's peak and become the best it can be, one of them needs to voluntarily accept the secondary role.