RealGM

Simple deal:

OKC trades 16+18 to Sac for 9

WHY FOR OKC?
1). They have so many 1sts, that it would be better to consolidate to get a higher talent. They also have two high 2nds in this draft.

WHY FOR THE KINGS?
1). They'll probably take a young big (to replace the likely traded Bagley) and need a young wing as well. Getting 16 & 18 allows them to do that (at least one of the bigs of Kai Jones, Sengun, Jackson will likely be there at 16/18) (at least one of Williams, Moody, Johnson, Garuba, Williams, Kispert) could be there at 16/18).

Yes for OKC. I’m iffy if Kings say yes. Do they have any bad contract(s) they want out of?

IN for OKC. Don't think Sacramento agrees to that.

Requires more from OKC. Would also require Buddy or Bagley/9 for Wood/23 to be turned down first IMO. Then the same for Grant and likely Siakam. Plus all other three way or package options that net a better player leveraging 9. If all that fails, and OKC is giving up more, then I can see this deal. There are a lot of guys in that range that will be good players.

Would OKC take buddy?

I have #16 + #18 as enough to get a discussion for #12 (San Antonio). San Antonio may or may not do it, but at least it isn't an insulting offer.

To get a discussion for #9, OKC needs to add more.

I'm with the consensus that it's not enough. But honestly, it's all about the draft board like it always is in this scenario.

There are also follow up trade consideration scenarios to consider too. What if SAC doesn't find any deals worth a #9 pick, BUT they come up with 2 deals:

Wright's expiring salary + #16 for a win now vet
Bagley's expiring deal (and potential) plus #18 for another win now piece

Maybe all of the teams with a player worth giving up #9 are holding out for too much more than that so SAC likes this path better.

hugepatsfan wrote:I'm with the consensus that it's not enough. But honestly, it's all about the draft board like it always is in this scenario.

There are also follow up trade consideration scenarios to consider too. What if SAC doesn't find any deals worth a #9 pick, BUT they come up with 2 deals:

Wright's expiring salary + #16 for a win now vet
Bagley's expiring deal (and potential) plus #18 for another win now piece

Maybe all of the teams with a player worth giving up #9 are holding out for too much more than that so SAC likes this path better.

If 9 can't be leverage for a player, then it's possible to do this but likely add Bazley and take back salary, and maybe a future pick (this is where OKC has hurt itself with all those picks, teams are going to be asking for extras). Kings wouldn't be desperate to do this deal, OKC would have to pay on top of those two picks to get to 9.

16, 18, 35, 36, Kenrich Williams for 9, Bagley, Buddy

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:16, 18, 35, 36, Kenrich Williams for 9, Bagley, Buddy

McNair needs to get an impact player. He has the 9 and Barnes as positive value to trade. Bagley and Buddy have varying negative values on RealGM (although I suspect there is more GM interest than on this board). If he trades 9 and doesn't get an impact player he needs something else substantial to hang his hat on and cap space in Sac isn't it.

I think he'd need it to be 16/18/35/Good First 22/non-Poku player (Presti won't give him up IMO) for salary dump of Kings choice. And even then...it's tough not so much because of value but because of the place the franchise is in and what it signals, which is another year of likely no playoffs. It could end up costing McNair his job, and it almost certainly costs Luke his. Even worse, what's it do to Fox's desire to stick around.

Godaddycurse wrote:Would OKC take buddy?

So 16, 18, Buddy for 9?

I’d be hesitant which probably means this is a good trade. What about Bagley instead? OKC needs a center and Bagley needs a new home

SNPA wrote:

hugepatsfan wrote:I'm with the consensus that it's not enough. But honestly, it's all about the draft board like it always is in this scenario.

There are also follow up trade consideration scenarios to consider too. What if SAC doesn't find any deals worth a #9 pick, BUT they come up with 2 deals:

Wright's expiring salary + #16 for a win now vet
Bagley's expiring deal (and potential) plus #18 for another win now piece

Maybe all of the teams with a player worth giving up #9 are holding out for too much more than that so SAC likes this path better.

If 9 can't be leverage for a player, then it's possible to do this but likely add Bazley and take back salary, and maybe a future pick (this is where OKC has hurt itself with all those picks, teams are going to be asking for extras). Kings wouldn't be desperate to do this deal, OKC would have to pay on top of those two picks to get to 9.

So I guess the OKC should ask for less picks in a trade?

Dn4sty wrote:

SNPA wrote:

hugepatsfan wrote:I'm with the consensus that it's not enough. But honestly, it's all about the draft board like it always is in this scenario.

There are also follow up trade consideration scenarios to consider too. What if SAC doesn't find any deals worth a #9 pick, BUT they come up with 2 deals:

Wright's expiring salary + #16 for a win now vet
Bagley's expiring deal (and potential) plus #18 for another win now piece

Maybe all of the teams with a player worth giving up #9 are holding out for too much more than that so SAC likes this path better.

If 9 can't be leverage for a player, then it's possible to do this but likely add Bazley and take back salary, and maybe a future pick (this is where OKC has hurt itself with all those picks, teams are going to be asking for extras). Kings wouldn't be desperate to do this deal, OKC would have to pay on top of those two picks to get to 9.

So I guess the OKC should ask for less picks in a trade?

No. But all things have consequences.

SNPA wrote:

Dn4sty wrote:

SNPA wrote:If 9 can't be leverage for a player, then it's possible to do this but likely add Bazley and take back salary, and maybe a future pick (this is where OKC has hurt itself with all those picks, teams are going to be asking for extras). Kings wouldn't be desperate to do this deal, OKC would have to pay on top of those two picks to get to 9.

So I guess the OKC should ask for less picks in a trade?

No. But all things have consequences.

I doubt this happens as much you think. There are so many asset starved teams that will gladly accept what is a fair price IMO.

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:16, 18, 35, 36, Kenrich Williams for 9, Bagley, Buddy

I’d want to keep 18 or 35 and 36. That’s a ton of not so great money coming to OKC. Also Kenrich is a bargain

I'd counter

9/Bagely for 16/18/Dort

City of Trees wrote:I'd counter

9/Bagely for 16/18/Dort

I totally understand the counter, but I’d say no. Boo good