RealGM

Assuming Sacramento and Buddy cannot come to an agreement. Pick becomes unprotected in 2021.

MIN: Buddy Hield
OUT: Josh Okogie, Jaylen Nowell, and Minnesota's 2020 First Round Draft Pick (Top Four Protected)

Why for Minnesota? The team's shooting is absolutely abysmal, and Buddy immediately fixes that. Followed by giving the dude his 110MM extension.

SAC: Josh Okogie, Jaylen Nowell, and Minnesota's 2020 First Round Draft Pick (Top Four Protected)
OUT: Buddy Hield

Why for Sacramento? Get two cost-controlled, young wings and a (likely) mid-to-late lottery pick.

Way too light for the Kings. For Buddy it’s definitely RoCo and a 1st.

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Way too light for the Kings. For Buddy it’s definitely RoCo and a 1st.

Even that feels light. I really don't see the Kings moving on from Buddy.

This is more click bait occurring than anything else.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Way too light for the Kings. For Buddy it’s definitely RoCo and a 1st.

Even that feels light. I really don't see the Kings moving on from Buddy.

This is more click bait occurring than anything else.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Yeah I get it as someone who had to deal with endless rumors and big shifts. FWIW I like the idea of moving Bogdan, but only to get cost controlled complimentary players.

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Way too light for the Kings. For Buddy it’s definitely RoCo and a 1st.

Even that feels light. I really don't see the Kings moving on from Buddy.

This is more click bait occurring than anything else.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Yeah I get it as someone who had to deal with endless rumors and big shifts. FWIW I like the idea of moving Bogdan, but only to get cost controlled complimentary players.

I prefer to keep both, but yeah I think bogey is movable if it gets us a piece that takes us to the next level.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:

Hield of Dreams wrote:Even that feels light. I really don't see the Kings moving on from Buddy.

This is more click bait occurring than anything else.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Yeah I get it as someone who had to deal with endless rumors and big shifts. FWIW I like the idea of moving Bogdan, but only to get cost controlled complimentary players.

I prefer to keep both, but yeah I think bogey is movable if it gets us a piece that takes us to the next level.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

After Siakam do you think the Kings do the same for Buddy?

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:
Yeah I get it as someone who had to deal with endless rumors and big shifts. FWIW I like the idea of moving Bogdan, but only to get cost controlled complimentary players.

I prefer to keep both, but yeah I think bogey is movable if it gets us a piece that takes us to the next level.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

After Siakam do you think the Kings do the same for Buddy?

I think buddy gets a 4 year 104 deal

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:

Hield of Dreams wrote:I prefer to keep both, but yeah I think bogey is movable if it gets us a piece that takes us to the next level.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

After Siakam do you think the Kings do the same for Buddy?

I think buddy gets a 4 year 104 deal

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

I feel like 115 and it’s done

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:
After Siakam do you think the Kings do the same for Buddy?

I think buddy gets a 4 year 104 deal

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

I feel like 115 and it’s done

He's asking for 110

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:

Hield of Dreams wrote:I think buddy gets a 4 year 104 deal

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

I feel like 115 and it’s done

He's asking for 110

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

This is what we just discussed with Siakam. Pay the man. 5m over the life of the deal is nothing. Let him know he’s core.

Having way too much money for 2 wings that don't play defense should be a no go for Minnesota.

OP is nice for Minnesota - makes a lot of sense for their roster.
Sacramento almost certainly says no and I doubt Minnesota wants to sweeten the deal with a pick.

Buddy + Barnes

For

Culver + Wiggins

Kings go younger but get a cost controlled rookie contract that is ideal. If Culver can prove core worthy with Fox and MB3 they have one of the best young cores in the business. Wiggins gets a fresh start.

Wolves try a more balanced but older lineup around Towns in a post Wiggins era.
C: Towns
F: Covington or Barnes
F: Barnes or Covington
G: Buddy
G: Teague

rugbyrugger23 wrote:Buddy + Barnes

For

Culver + Wiggins

Kings go younger but get a cost controlled rookie contract that is ideal. If Culver can prove core worthy with Fox and MB3 they have one of the best young cores in the business. Wiggins gets a fresh start.

Wolves try a more balanced but older lineup around Towns in a post Wiggins era.
C: Towns
F: Covington or Barnes
F: Barnes or Covington
G: Buddy
G: Teague

There is no way Culver is moved with Wiggins. Actually, there is no way Culver is moved, period.

Culver has looked great for Minnesota and 4 years at his contract helps them immensely.

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Way too light for the Kings. For Buddy it’s definitely RoCo and a 1st.

Even that feels light. I really don't see the Kings moving on from Buddy.

This is more click bait occurring than anything else.

This isn’t just Buddy Hield.. this is Buddy Hield asking for a max deal. SAC can pay a max deal, and didn’t offer it.

You think for another team, he is worth not just the max deal, but paying big time assets? If he was worth this much more than the max, SAC would simply pay the max.

As for “clickbait,” I would never dismiss something Shams or Woj said, just because I didn’t like it.

shrink wrote:

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Way too light for the Kings. For Buddy it’s definitely RoCo and a 1st.

Even that feels light. I really don't see the Kings moving on from Buddy.

This is more click bait occurring than anything else.

This isn’t just Buddy Hield.. this is Buddy Hield asking for a max deal. SAC can pay a max deal, and didn’t offer it.

You think for another team, he is worth not just the max deal, but paying big time assets? If he was worth this much more than the max, SAC would simply pay the max.

As for “clickbait,” I would never dismiss something Shams or Woj said, just because I didn’t like it.

No buddy camp was seeking near 110M. Kings gave an offer of 90m. A max deal would be 130m.

Theyre in negotiation and the Kings could opt to pay more after another season if they choose to go the RFA route. Really from the Kings perspective an extension should be favorable to them. Otherwise just match what buddy commands in open market next year. There is little incentive to give buddy the max now when you can do it next year and have a further year of evaluation.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

shrink wrote:

Hield of Dreams wrote:

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:Way too light for the Kings. For Buddy it’s definitely RoCo and a 1st.

Even that feels light. I really don't see the Kings moving on from Buddy.

This is more click bait occurring than anything else.

This isn’t just Buddy Hield.. this is Buddy Hield asking for a max deal. SAC can pay a max deal, and didn’t offer it.

You think for another team, he is worth not just the max deal, but paying big time assets? If he was worth this much more than the max, SAC would simply pay the max.

As for “clickbait,” I would never dismiss something Shams or Woj said, just because I didn’t like it.

They're shams and woj. not gospel. They have a lot of insider info because they are tools to agents and free offices. They write a lot of puff pieces and in return get the info ahead of time. However I will read every piece of journalism with a critical eye whether I agree with them or not. I ask the question. Who benefits from this narrative. And that's typically where the truth lies.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Culver + Okogie for Buddy.

kb02 wrote:Culver + Okogie for Buddy.

Minnesota says no quickly.

kb02 wrote:Culver + Okogie for Buddy.

Culver is much more valuable than Buddy.

What pick do you think Buddy could fetch in this draft?