Rebuilding the Sacramento Kings...

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

-= original quote snipped =-



Then the Kings can wait until the offseason when he is a good player with a large valuable expiring contract.

But then he'll have more value as an expiring contract than as a PG, e.g. Jamison.

[SactownHrtBrks8]

-= original quote snipped =-

But then he'll have more value as an expiring contract than as a PG, e.g. Jamison.

No he would valuable as both a player and an expiring and could fetch a lot more crap then the cavs are offering.

Jamison has value as both right now, but why the hell would the Wizards tade him anyway?

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

-= original quote snipped =-



No he would valuable as both a player and an expiring and could fetch a lot more crap then the cavs are offering.

Jamison has value as both right now, but why the hell would the Wizards tade him anyway?

When a JO to Washington deal is proposed, Jamison has to be included. Is it because Indy wants Jamison's skillset? No. It's because he has an expiring contract.

The only team that wants Bibby is the Cavs, tell me what other team wants him?

[SactownHrtBrks8]

-= original quote snipped =-

When a JO to Washington deal is proposed, Jamison has to be included. Is it because Indy wants Jamison's skillset? No. It's because he has an expiring contract.

The only team that wants Bibby is the Cavs, tell me what other team wants him?

Jamison's skill set was a plus though(Wizards would be crazy to that trade, Oneal is on the decline Jamison is an all-star), it didn't hurt. So basically the way you're putting it is that the Kings could offer Bibby to a team and get a star player back because he is an expiring contract. I don't see a problem with that.

As of right now the only team that wants him is Cavs, but times change. Players get angry, PGs play terrible, young teams think a good PG can get them in the playoffs, that can change easily

Don't take wanting to trade Bibby to wanting give him away.

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

-= original quote snipped =-



Jamison's skill set was a plus though, it didn't hurt. So basically the way you're putting it is that the Kings could offer Bibby to a team and get a star player because he is an expiring contract. I don't see a problem with that.

As of right now the only team that wants him is Cavs, but times change. Players get angry, PGs play terrible, young teams think a good PG can get them in the playoffs.

Don't take wanting to trade Bibby to wanting give him away.

Except that Washington is a contending team, so trading Jamison and young players and picks for JO or Gasol makes sense. Does that make sense for the Kings? I wouldn't think so.

The point is that if the Kings want a package to dump money and get a pick, NOW is the time to do it, and the Cavs are the only team that has interest in Bibby ATM.

[gswhoops]

I think what Kings fans don't understand is that there is no market for Bibby. There really were only 2 teams, the Cavs and Heat, that wanted Bibby.

Yes, but what you're assuming is that the Kings have to trade him.

Trade value is largely determined by the team that has the desired player (i.e. Bibby) and whether or not they think their team will be better off in the long run by keeping him.

If the Cavs don't give up what Petrie decides Bibby's "value" is, then he doesn't get traded. That's why Sacramento is in the driver's seat, because they hold Bibby.

Remember the "other golden rule" --> He who has the gold makes the rules.

[sac89837]

-= original quote snipped =-

The only team that wants Bibby is the Cavs, tell me what other team wants him?

Indiana would probably want him as Tinsley has fallen apart and has been edged out by Diener.

Orlando would probably want him since Jameer Nelson has been disappointing.

Orlando would be the best fit I think since they have expiring contracts and they need someone to take shots at the end of games.

A trade of Bibby for Battie+Dooling+Garrity and Lottery protected pick works for both teams I think.

[sackings916]

I think what Kings fans don't understand is that there is no market for Bibby. There really were only 2 teams, the Cavs and Heat, that wanted Bibby. Now it looks like the Heat want to rebuild, so that knocks them out of the equation. So, to say that the Kings are in the driver's seat is incorrect. If the Kings want to get a 1st and dump KT, then they won't be getting any true talent in return.

Bibby and KT for Marshall, Snow, Newble, 1st, (maybe Simmons or Shannon Brown) makes the most sense. The Cavs keep their core players, and the Kings dump KT's contract and get a 1st and maybe a young player. Asking for any more is ridiculous. If you want Gooden, then you don't get the 1st, and we may not take back KT and ask for Moore instead. It's that simple.

I think what you dont understand is we are perfectly fine with keeping Bibby and his production and letting that 14+ mill come off the books if we do not get a deal thats worth moving him. A late 1st + scrubs is not worth moving him.

[shrink]

I think what you dont understand is we are perfectly fine with keeping Bibby and his production and letting that 14+ mill come off the books if we do not get a deal thats worth moving him.

I guess I don't understand either.

Why would your owner would want to pay $14.5 mil next season for, at BEST, two first round exits from the play-offs?

[SactownHrtBrks8]

-= original quote snipped =-



I guess I don't understand either.

Why would your owner would want to pay $14.5 mil next season for, at BEST, two first round exits from the play-offs?

I don't understand you either

Why trade the better players for worse players that won't get you a first round exit and won't save you money?

[shrink]

Are you speaking about a specific deal? Bibby's deal comes off the books in 2009, not this year, so SAC needs to plunk down a mere $14.5 mil for next year.

I would think that getting expirings, and avoid paying $14.5 mil would make SAC more motivated than just hanging onto him. He doesn't help a team that doesn't have championship ambitions.

[SactownHrtBrks8]

Are you speaking about a specific deal? Bibby's deal comes off the books in 2009, not this year, so SAC needs to plunk down a mere $14.5 mil for next year.

I would think that getting expirings, and avoid paying $14.5 mil would make SAC more motivated than just hanging onto him. He doesn't help a team that doesn't have championship ambitions.

we've been talking about a Cavs deal that has no expiring contracts beside Newble

and

Bibby will be worth more in the offseason as an expiring contract and a chance to improve his value coming off a bad year

[shrink]

Well, this season the CAVs offer would save SAC a little less than $4 mil dollars, so that's a missed opportunity cost (21.75-15.71) x 2/3 season left

You may find another deal, but next season it saves SAC $10 mil, and the following year it saves $8.8, for a $22 mil savings plus the late pick.


Personally, I don't think the Cavs can afford to give up an expiring and so much money in the 125% + 100,000, because that money is doubled over the lux.

This would cost them:

2007-08 $8 mil $4 mil increase for the remainder of the year x2 for lux
2008-09 $20 mil $10 mil increase x2 for lux
2009-10 $8.8 mil Kenny Thomas third year .. non lux
------------------------------------------------------------------

So this deal is going to cost them almost $37 mil, and a late lottery pick, for 15 months of Bibby? That's crazy.

[SactownHrtBrks8]

Well, this season the CAVs offer would save SAC a little less than $4 mil dollars, so that's a missed opportunity cost (21.75-15.71) x 2/3 season left

You may find another deal, but next season it saves SAC $10 mil, and the following year it saves $8.8, for a $22 mil savings plus the late pick.


Personally, I don't think the Cavs can afford to give up an expiring and so much money in the 125% + 100,000, because that money is doubled over the lux.

This would cost them:

2007-08 $8 mil $4 mil increase for the remainder of the year x2 for lux
2008-09 $20 mil $10 mil increase x2 for lux
2009-10 $8.8 mil Kenny Thomas third year .. non lux
------------------------------------------------------------------

So this deal is going to cost them almost $37 mil, and a late lottery pick, for 15 months of Bibby? That's crazy.

We weren't talking about a deal with Kenny Thomas in it bud so pay attention.

[shrink]

Gahh .. no one even bothered to run this through the checker? This deal doesn't even make the 125% + $100,000 to pass a trade checker, and still doesn't without Shannon Brown. Cedric Simmons would have to be included.

[shrink]

We weren't talking about a deal with Kenny Thomas in it bud so pay attention.

Were YOU paying attention?

I think what Kings fans don't understand is that there is no market for Bibby. There really were only 2 teams, the Cavs and Heat, that wanted Bibby. Now it looks like the Heat want to rebuild, so that knocks them out of the equation. So, to say that the Kings are in the driver's seat is incorrect. If the Kings want to get a 1st and dump KT, then they won't be getting any true talent in return.

Bibby and KT for Marshall, Snow, Newble, 1st, (maybe Simmons or Shannon Brown) makes the most sense. The Cavs keep their core players, and the Kings dump KT's contract and get a 1st and maybe a young player. Asking for any more is ridiculous. If you want Gooden, then you don't get the 1st, and we may not take back KT and ask for Moore instead. It's that simple.

Then the Kings can wait until the offseason when he is a good player with a large valuable expiring contract.

[Smills91]

So Bibby for Marshall and Snow is OK with you, right?

Damn it shrink, can't you read..value is SUBJECTIVE. Of course that's not okay, but we're talking about CONTRACTS. I made that clear in my previous posts.