Thoughts in General, Rumors, etc 4.0

[MoneyTalks41890]

If PHI is turning down say McCollum and one 1st, I think they need to get real about the situation.

They absolutely should not take that deal.

[Dr Positivity]

If PHI is turning down say McCollum and one 1st, I think they need to get real about the situation.

They absolutely should not take that deal.

They backed themselves into a corner and should not be expected to get anything close to 100% on the dollar for Simmons, who's not even that amazing a player to begin with for his contract anyways. McCollum could make ASG in the East next year. It's not a bad deal.

[Roy The Natural]

If PHI is turning down say McCollum and one 1st, I think they need to get real about the situation.

Maybe. But I'd argue that if Portland is only offering CJ and one 1st they are blowing the one opportunity to maybe be a contender with Dame.

I agree... I think Portland should seriously consider 2 1sts, or a 1st and a player like Covington. However, it's impossible to know what the real situation is here. Maybe many of these teams have gotten word through whatever means that Simmons won't be happy there.

[Roy The Natural]

If PHI is turning down say McCollum and one 1st, I think they need to get real about the situation.

They absolutely should not take that deal.

They backed themselves into a corner and should not be expected to get anything close to 100% on the dollar for Simmons, who's not even that amazing a player to begin with for his contract anyways. McCollum could make ASG in the East next year. It's not a bad deal.

I'd wager that McCollum has a significantly higher chance of making the ASG in the East than Simmons does in the West.

[jayu70]

What are the Kings doing?

Read on Twitter

[Texas Chuck]

well yeah that's pretty bad.

[HartfordWhalers]

well yeah that's pretty bad.

Is it?

I absolutely think you would have heard someone talking smack that the Kings "turned down a 1st rounder'" if they did.

Especially before you publicly out yourself as the source as an agent; you get every bleacher reporter initialed JF that runs almost everything they hear to run something, right? Something like: "Celtics offered a 1st {and kemba*} and Sac turned it down "

Instead, we just have the Kings turned down nebulous trades on value. But I'm not told that they actually were wrong. If it was Bertans, i have it the right move, even if you don't play Bagley now. And Bagley did have some optionality value he has lost since then. It could have been a pair of late 2nds; something that is better than nothing and maybe even Sac takes it now. But it wasn't worth giving up the chance that Bagley came back this preseason and monstered everyone.

I guess I just don't see fault with the Kings here yet, and Bagley's agent going over the top poorly. Which has nothing to do with drafting Bagley.


*{not included in story, obviously}

[Texas Chuck]

well yeah that's pretty bad.

Is it?

I absolutely think you would have heard someone talking smack that the Kings "turned down a 1st rounder'" if they did.

Especially before you publicly out yourself as the source as an agent; you get every bleacher reporter initialed JF that runs almost everything they hear to run something, right? Something like: "Celtics offered a 1st {and kemba*} and Sac turned it down "

Instead, we just have the Kings turned down nebulous trades on value. But I'm not told that they actually were wrong. If it was Bertans, i have it the right move, even if you don't play Bagley now. And Bagley did have some optionality value he has lost since then. It could have been a pair of late 2nds; something that is better than nothing and maybe even Sac takes it now. But it wasn't worth giving up the chance that Bagley came back this preseason and monstered everyone.

I guess I just don't see fault with the Kings here yet, and Bagley's agent going over the top poorly. Which has nothing to do with drafting Bagley.


*{not included in story, obviously}

I have it as pretty bad by Bagley and Schwartz. I have zero issues with the Kings not trading him for crap or not putting him in the rotation if he hasn't earned the spot.

I was told by multiple Kings fans that there was no more drama around Bagley. Bagley's agent said hold my beer while I create some.

[zimpy27]

What are the Kings doing?

Read on Twitter

Could they just be tanking his value so they can resign him for cheap?

Is anyone offering more than the MLE for Bagley in RFA?

[rpa]

What are the Kings doing?

Read on Twitter

Agent angry his trash client not getting enough playing time to later sign deal he doesn't deserve. News at 11.

[jeffjtk1234]

What are the Kings doing?

Read on Twitter

Could they just be tanking his value so they can resign him for cheap?

Is anyone offering more than the MLE for Bagley in RFA?

Doubt it. Thinking he’s done as a king.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MoneyTalks41890]

I personally would offer Favors, Kenrich for Bagley. Because I’ve seen headaches turn around. And I still like the talent. I know it’s not a good deal, but Sac also isn’t in a good dealing position at the moment.

[HartfordWhalers]

I personally would offer Favors, Kenrich for Bagley. Because I’ve seen headaches turn around. And I still like the talent. I know it’s not a good deal, but Sac also isn’t in a good dealing position at the moment.

The second year on Favors just hurts that value enough that if I was Sac I would rather cut Bagley.

But OKC has cap space right, would you do Kenrich straight up without the salary dump?

[Texas Chuck]

I personally would offer Favors, Kenrich for Bagley. Because I’ve seen headaches turn around. And I still like the talent. I know it’s not a good deal, but Sac also isn’t in a good dealing position at the moment.

The second year on Favors just hurts that value enough that if I was Sac I would rather cut Bagley.

But OKC has cap space right, would you do Kenrich straight up without the salary dump?

Why not just into space with Kenrich going to a 3rd team for some value for OKC? I have Bagley as negative and Kenrich with at least a little positive value.

[MoneyTalks41890]

I personally would offer Favors, Kenrich for Bagley. Because I’ve seen headaches turn around. And I still like the talent. I know it’s not a good deal, but Sac also isn’t in a good dealing position at the moment.

The second year on Favors just hurts that value enough that if I was Sac I would rather cut Bagley.

But OKC has cap space right, would you do Kenrich straight up without the salary dump?

I wouldn’t just because the idea would be to let a committee of folks tryout playing center in furtherance of the tank and moving on from Favors would be a part of that. But I would add a few seconds to the original.

[HartfordWhalers]

I personally would offer Favors, Kenrich for Bagley. Because I’ve seen headaches turn around. And I still like the talent. I know it’s not a good deal, but Sac also isn’t in a good dealing position at the moment.

The second year on Favors just hurts that value enough that if I was Sac I would rather cut Bagley.

But OKC has cap space right, would you do Kenrich straight up without the salary dump?

I wouldn’t just because the idea would be to let a committee of folks tryout playing center in furtherance of the tank and moving on from Favors would be a part of that. But I would add a few seconds to the original.

I think in contrast it is easier to do a deal around say Muscala for Bagley, where it it is salary relief for the Kings and an (expensive) try out of young talent for the Thunder than in essence asking if the Kings would eat 10m next year to get Kendrich and 2nds.

I value Bagley very little, just don't see the Kings the team to take that salary dump even if it is fully fair value, which depending on the 2nds it could definitely be.

Chuck might be right about a third team?

[Resistance]

This Bagley stuff reminds of Courtney Lee a while back when he might have neutral value at best when he was with the Knicks. Instead of giving him away for expiring or shorter duration money, some expected to trade him for some modest positive value.
Eventually he drifted into being blah money and the the Knicks pushed him off to Dallas.

If the Knicks had washed their hands of him sooner and worked in & out of small deals of eating salary for compensation, they could have netted some modest compensation equal to or better than what was expected for Courtney Lee directly. It takes more work & hustle from a FO to do that type of wheeling and dealing, but sometimes it is best to accept reality and just move on from a player rather than keep hoping a chump GM will come along and give the asking price for a player that has no future with your team.

[HornetJail]

This Bagley stuff reminds of Courtney Lee a while back when he might have neutral value at best when he was with the Knicks. Instead of giving him away for expiring or shorter duration money, some expected to trade him for some modest positive value.
Eventually he drifted into being blah money and the the Knicks pushed him off to Dallas.

If the Knicks had washed their hands of him sooner and worked in & out of small deals of eating salary for compensation, they could have netted some modest compensation equal to or better than what was expected for Courtney Lee directly. It takes more work & hustle from a FO to do that type of wheeling and dealing, but sometimes it is best to accept reality and just move on from a player rather than keep hoping a chump GM will come along and give the asking price for a player that has no future with your team.

the difference is the Knicks signed a 31-year-old Courtney Lee to a 4-year deal and he slowly declined... as 30-something wings tend to do.

The Kings drafted a 19-year-old with the 2nd overall pick who had a world of upside. I don't blame them for a minute holding onto him, hoping he could fulfill some potential.

[Texas Chuck]

Knicks ended up making a hell of a Courtney Lee deal in the end fwiw.

[blind prophet]

I think any expiring salary for Bagley is likely to be taken. Unless it's a more complicated trade where his salary is needed.