Random Rumor Thread: Post em here

mlloyd10 · Post #1701 » by **mlloyd10** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:45 am

Bucks still interested in signing Allen

Mylie10 · Post #1702 » by **Mylie10** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:05 pm

drosestruts wrote:Speaking of Rubio, Dan Feldman is reporting the Kings are interested in him - http://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/08/16/rumor-kings-interested-in-ricky-rubio/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

As Glen Taylor said on this podcast a couple episodes ago, Ricky Rubio will start the season with the Wolves. But I can tell you, as I’ve said a number of times, the Sacramento Kings are a team to watch. Vlade Divac, George Karl, now George Karl into Dave Joerger. Keep an eye on the Sacramento Kings if slash when the Wolves decide to make a move on Ricky. But, again, nothing is imminent. Ricky Rubio will be with the Wolves opening night.

I think something built around Rubio for WCS would be interesting to both teams

I'm thinking Collison might also be a piece attractive to Minny going back because he is a really good backup, and it would allow Dunn to start. Or be a placeholder until Dunn is ready.

To me, the Wolves are going to be extremely scary once Dunn is playing a major role. I can't believe Boston passed on that kid. He's going to be special. And with Towns and Wiggins, they are scary.

Post #1703 » by **Andre Roberstan** » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:15 pm

More Rubio noise:

Read on Twitter

Wolfson's very trustworthy on Wolves stuff.

Post #1704 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:27 pm

As a Philly fan, I want no part of Rubio to Sacramento. Which should tell you that they should be knocking down that door hard imo.

YourBuddy · Post #1705 » by **YourBuddy** » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:36 pm

Trade deadline will be interesting. I can picture the Kings being tired of dealing with Lawson by the deadline and being even more interested in Rubio.

FrontPageNews · Post #1706 » by **FrontPageNews** » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:37 pm

Rubio would be so good in Sacramento. I wonder what Minnesota was asking for? McLemore and a pick maybe? Rudy gay?

Post #1707 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:42 pm

FrontPageNews wrote:Rubio would be so good in Sacramento. I wonder what Minnesota was asking for? McLemore and a pick maybe? Rudy gay?

Gay makes zero sense in Minnesota, and McLemore is more a throw in than the value in a Rubio trade.

If I were them, the conversation starts with WCS. Which seems a solid basis all around although tempers can flare.

There is an interesting case for Papagiannis and the rights to Bogdanovic, because I'm not sold that a Papagiannis type isn't a better pairing than WCS, but I don't think you can sell that on value.

wolves_89 · Post #1708 » by **wolves_89** » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:49 pm

FrontPageNews wrote:Rubio would be so good in Sacramento. I wonder what Minnesota was asking for? McLemore and a pick maybe? Rudy gay?

McLemore has virtually no value and Gay very little. Neither are starting points for a Rubio trade. I believe the Kings 1st round picks are tied up until 2020 (2017 and 2019 already traded), so it is also unlikely that a pick would work as the basis for a trade. The only King's trade asset that would even get a discussion started would be WCS and that would get complicated since the Minnesota roster is already unbalanced with 8 bigs who can't play SF.

the_process · Post #1709 » by **the_process** » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:52 pm

If I were SAC, I would want to send Gay and Koufos out somewhere to get assets MIN would take for Rubio.

Post #1710 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:57 pm

oyoyer wrote:If I were SAC, I would want to send Gay and Koufos out somewhere to get assets MIN would take for Rubio.

If I were Philly, I would want to send Stauskas and Landry out for the same. But if wishes were horses...

(and yes, those Sac players have more combined value. I still don't see it as close enough to be close.)

Post #1711 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:00 am

wolves_89 wrote:
FrontPageNews wrote:Rubio would be so good in Sacramento. I wonder what Minnesota was asking for? McLemore and a pick maybe? Rudy gay?

McLemore has virtually no value and Gay very little. Neither are starting points for a Rubio trade. I believe the Kings 1st round picks are tied up until 2020 (2017 and 2019 already traded), so it is also unlikely that a pick would work as the basis for a trade. The only King's trade asset that would even get a discussion started would be WCS and that would get complicated since the Minnesota roster is already unbalanced with 8 bigs who can't play SF.

2021. Stepien applies so it would need to be 2 years after 2019. However, 2020 would be available as a pick swap in theory. (I do think picks that far off is a terrible direction for both teams to go in a trade).

wolves_89 · Post #1712 » by **wolves_89** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:05 am

HartfordWhalers wrote:
wolves_89 wrote:
FrontPageNews wrote:Rubio would be so good in Sacramento. I wonder what Minnesota was asking for? McLemore and a pick maybe? Rudy gay?

McLemore has virtually no value and Gay very little. Neither are starting points for a Rubio trade. I believe the Kings 1st round picks are tied up until 2020 (2017 and 2019 already traded), so it is also unlikely that a pick would work as the basis for a trade. The only King's trade asset that would even get a discussion started would be WCS and that would get complicated since the Minnesota roster is already unbalanced with 8 bigs who can't play SF.

2021. Stepien applies so it would need to be 2 years after 2019. However, 2020 would be available as a pick swap in theory. (I do think picks that far off is a terrible direction for both teams to go in a trade).

You're right and that makes a King's pick even less valuable. I can't see the Wolves having interest in a pick that far away since they are trying to move into a competitive window sooner rather than later (plus, a pick that far in the future has huge variability in value).

Post #1713 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:18 am

wolves_89 wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:
wolves_89 wrote:
McLemore has virtually no value and Gay very little. Neither are starting points for a Rubio trade. I believe the Kings 1st round picks are tied up until 2020 (2017 and 2019 already traded), so it is also unlikely that a pick would work as the basis for a trade. The only King's trade asset that would even get a discussion started would be WCS and that would get complicated since the Minnesota roster is already unbalanced with 8 bigs who can't play SF.

2021. Stepien applies so it would need to be 2 years after 2019. However, 2020 would be available as a pick swap in theory. (I do think picks that far off is a terrible direction for both teams to go in a trade).

You're right and that makes a King's pick even less valuable. I can't see the Wolves having interest in a pick that far away since they are trying to move into a competitive window sooner rather than later (plus, a pick that far in the future has huge variability in value).

And 1'ed just for that last point (not to say the rest was't good). That much variability makes a deal incredibly unlikely in a generally risk averse field. And the most un-risk averse GM I knew just got fired(despite being hugely popular locally), so there is an internal logic to the position.

I think a WCS for Rubio and people futz around the edges on value makes a ton of sense. I still secretly love the idea of Papgiannis and Bogdanovic. Mostly because:
-- I'm not all that high on WCS despite where he was drafted
-- I love the idea of Towns destroying people from pf instead of center (and think WCS as a pf on offense never happens). He has the range and I think it will increase his longevity to be the next KG. He has the range and the defense versatility, while it spares him the pounding and helps the team play bigger than the opponent.
-- I'm high enough on Bogdanovic.
-- And in general whether it is WCS or otherwise, I'm really cool with Minnesota taking it slower this year than people expect and still adding to a core that isn't yet at the **** or get off the pot stage that a team like Utah is; especially if it increases the team's ceiling. I do wonder if ownership can take that longer view however.

the_process · Post #1714 » by **the_process** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 2:12 am

HartfordWhalers wrote:
oyoyer wrote:If I were SAC, I would want to send Gay and Koufos out somewhere to get assets MIN would take for Rubio.

If I were Philly, I would want to send Stauskas and Landry out for the same. But if wishes were horses...

(and yes, those Sac players have more combined value. I still don't see it as close enough to be close.)

I would disagree on the valuation of Rubio then. Gay and Koufos ought to be able to bring back something that Minnesota would be interested in.

wolves_89 · Post #1715 » by **wolves_89** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 2:23 am

oyoyer wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:
oyoyer wrote:If I were SAC, I would want to send Gay and Koufos out somewhere to get assets MIN would take for Rubio.

If I were Philly, I would want to send Stauskas and Landry out for the same. But if wishes were horses...

(and yes, those Sac players have more combined value. I still don't see it as close enough to be close.)

I would disagree on the valuation of Rubio then. Gay and Koufos ought to be able to bring back something that Minnesota would be interested in.

I'm not sure how much interest there is in Gay and Koufos around the league and would be very curious to see what they could bring back that would be attractive to Minnesota. I could be wrong, but at this point I'm just not seeing any team out there that is going to give up an an asset for them that would make the Wolves consider moving Rubio.

YourBuddy · Post #1716 » by **YourBuddy** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 3:56 am

Rubio, Dieng for WCS and Rudy Gay and sending to a third team for something pretty minor? Wolves open up a bunch of future cap, with Gay's expiring replacing Rubio's current contract and Dieng's future contract, and get a long term piece in WCS.

YourBuddy · Post #1717 » by **YourBuddy** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 3:58 am

oyoyer wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:
oyoyer wrote:If I were SAC, I would want to send Gay and Koufos out somewhere to get assets MIN would take for Rubio.

If I were Philly, I would want to send Stauskas and Landry out for the same. But if wishes were horses...

(and yes, those Sac players have more combined value. I still don't see it as close enough to be close.)

I would disagree on the valuation of Rubio then. Gay and Koufos ought to be able to bring back something that Minnesota would be interested in.

If that were the case then I would bet Rubio would be on the Kings by now. Wolfson has reported on the Kings interest in Rubio since last summer.

the_process · Post #1718 » by **the_process** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:27 pm

YourBuddy wrote:Rubio, Dieng for WCS and Rudy Gay and sending to a third team for something pretty minor? Wolves open up a bunch of future cap, with Gay's expiring replacing Rubio's current contract and Dieng's future contract, and get a long term piece in WCS.

This works monetarily as is (no third team) and seems reasonable enough. Although now that they signed Lawson, will SAC be hesitant to make another move for a PG?

Post #1719 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 2:04 pm

oyoyer wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:
oyoyer wrote:If I were SAC, I would want to send Gay and Koufos out somewhere to get assets MIN would take for Rubio.

If I were Philly, I would want to send Stauskas and Landry out for the same. But if wishes were horses...

(and yes, those Sac players have more combined value. I still don't see it as close enough to be close.)

I would disagree on the valuation of Rubio then. Gay and Koufos ought to be able to bring back something that Minnesota would be interested in.

Curious if you are low on Rubio's value or more bullish on Gay and Koufos?

the_process · Post #1720 » by **the_process** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 3:51 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
oyoyer wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:
If I were Philly, I would want to send Stauskas and Landry out for the same. But if wishes were horses...

(and yes, those Sac players have more combined value. I still don't see it as close enough to be close.)

I would disagree on the valuation of Rubio then. Gay and Koufos ought to be able to bring back something that Minnesota would be interested in.

Curious if you are low on Rubio's value or more bullish on Gay and Koufos?

Mainly lower on Rubio, but I do think Koufos has what I would call sneaky good value. The problem is finding a team that needs a C and has assets.