Kings get a first and a shooter. Boston gets slew of 2nds and Salary relief

[brackdan70]

Kings In: Hauser (absorb into TPE) and 28
Kings Out: 42, 2026 2nd, 2026 2nd from Charlotte, 2027 2nd from Charlotte.

Boston Out: Hauser and 28
Boston in: 42 and 3 future seconds

Why for Kings: add a great rotation player in His prime, on a team friendly contract and get a first round pick ( they don’t have one for 2025).

Why for Boston: add a slew of 2nd to fill roster spots cheap, and save about 12 million in salary (they can possible drop 2 tiers in luxury tax,
Saving close to 70 million)
This values 28 at 2 seconds, and Hauser at 2 seconds

[cl2117]

It's fine. It's not exciting, I don't like it, but it makes sense. I think adding in #28 is kind of weird. Just leave it as Hauser for the TPE and 2nds (unless the logic is to try to avoid the first round pick's salary slot but even still it kind of just muddies the water here).

[Texas Chuck]

Some team should be willing to take on Hauser's contract. I'll admit to struggling if Boston owes or gets 1 or 2 2nds though. I think the more I think about it the more I believe they will owe them. There are other shooters on the market whose contracts are going to be cheaper/shorter and teams knowing Boston really benefits from moving salary makes me think its going to cost them something.

This is a clever way of trying to not pay to dump him while still adding some value to the team taking him. I think the actual deal is probably just Hauser/32 for fake 2nd though.

[jayjaysee]

I like it for both. Think Sac needs to be planning to redo their roster in order to use this much of their tax space.

But they really need to be planning some major roster changes anyways.

[hugepatsfan]

Some team should be willing to take on Hauser's contract. I'll admit to struggling if Boston owes or gets 1 or 2 2nds though. I think the more I think about it the more I believe they will owe them. There are other shooters on the market whose contracts are going to be cheaper/shorter and teams knowing Boston really benefits from moving salary makes me think its going to cost them something.

This is a clever way of trying to not pay to dump him while still adding some value to the team taking him. I think the actual deal is probably just Hauser/32 for fake 2nd though.

The thing is, dealing Hauser by himself, doesn't really do much for BOS. It saves lots of real money obviously, but against any threshold it's pretty meaningless unless coupled with Jrue/Porzingis/Brown/White trades. So in all reality they're likely dealing one or multiple of those other guys. And if it got to the point that they'd have to attach assets to dump Hauser, they'd probably rather use them to dump the scrap pieces they get from those deals instead.

[R-DAWG]

Don't think a pick is needed here. Some team will take Hauser into cap space or an exception with a low variance 2nd rd pick going back to Boston (needed to comply with the CBA).

I could also see a bigger deal coming into play here with a Jrue Holiday/DeMar DeRozan swap included. Gets Boston off the last year of Holiday's deal and the swap saves $7.65MM in 25/26 and $9,060,000 in 26/27. By not giving up draft capital here, Boston can follow up with a DeRozan plus pick #28 for a better fitting long term piece and potentially trim more payroll.

The combined trade sheds $17,694,644 in 25/26 payroll for Boston, bringing them within $6.25MM of the 2nd apron with 13 players on the roster (factoring in picks #28 and #32)

[Texas Chuck]

I can't speak to other moves and what Boston may prefer. I'm just talking about how I think other teams will value the player.

I also think the nearly 9 figures of real money savings shouldn't be dismissed just because it doesn't clear an apron. That's a ton of real value to Boston and more than worth giving up a 2nd round pick or two. Now maybe they won't have to. I freely concede they might even get value. I like the player. But I think he's getting overvalued here.

[cl2117]

Some team should be willing to take on Hauser's contract. I'll admit to struggling if Boston owes or gets 1 or 2 2nds though. I think the more I think about it the more I believe they will owe them. There are other shooters on the market whose contracts are going to be cheaper/shorter and teams knowing Boston really benefits from moving salary makes me think its going to cost them something.

This is a clever way of trying to not pay to dump him while still adding some value to the team taking him. I think the actual deal is probably just Hauser/32 for fake 2nd though.

I just can't fathom how a guy with Hauser's stat line and contract has to have assets added to him to be absorbed.

I am constantly proven wrong by the NBA so maybe that's the case but I just cannot get the math to work in my head where he's viewed as negative. Even if you factor in teams trying to squeeze Boston knowing the massive cap pressures they're under, the counter-balance would seem to be that he's a really good player that does the thing that every single team can always use more of (3&D) so there should be teams lining up to take him.

He's a neutral to plus defender and he's shot 42%+ from 3 every year he's been in the league. 3/35 left on his deal where he's going to be 28-30 years old. He played good rotation minutes for the team that won the championship last year. I just really can't get my head around it.

[Texas Chuck]

Some team should be willing to take on Hauser's contract. I'll admit to struggling if Boston owes or gets 1 or 2 2nds though. I think the more I think about it the more I believe they will owe them. There are other shooters on the market whose contracts are going to be cheaper/shorter and teams knowing Boston really benefits from moving salary makes me think its going to cost them something.

This is a clever way of trying to not pay to dump him while still adding some value to the team taking him. I think the actual deal is probably just Hauser/32 for fake 2nd though.

I just can't fathom how a guy with Hauser's stat line and contract has to have assets added to him to be absorbed.

I am constantly proven wrong by the NBA so maybe that's the case but I just cannot get the math to work in my head where he's viewed as negative. Even if you factor in teams trying to squeeze Boston knowing the massive cap pressures they're under, the counter-balance would seem to be that he's a really good player that does the thing that every single team can always use more of (3&D) so there should be teams lining up to take him.

He's a neutral to plus defender and he's shot 42%+ from 3 every year he's been in the league. 3/35 left on his deal where he's going to be 28-30 years old. He played good rotation minutes for the team that won the championship last year. I just really can't get my head around it.

Reggie Bullock Jr was a good shooter who played higher level of defense including coming off a deep playoff run where he covered more ground on the court than any other player in the entire Association playing nearly 40 mpg in that run. A year later Dallas gave up a swap to get off one year at slightly less money.

A more proven, more valuable guy cost an asset to dump. Now he didn't have a great year in Dallas before that, but he still was a 30 mpg starter who missed 4 games, shot nearly 40% from 3, and still held up defensively.

so this idea that a part-time with a smaller role and a longer deal might cost something when teams know they are motivated to move him seems not outlandish to me.

Again, they might not have to. Just my thoughts.

[enzino]

Kings In: Hauser (absorb into TPE) and 28
Kings Out: 42, 2026 2nd, 2026 2nd from Charlotte, 2027 2nd from Charlotte.

Boston Out: Hauser and 28
Boston in: 42 and 3 future seconds

Why for Kings: add a great rotation player in His prime, on a team friendly contract and get a first round pick ( they don’t have one for 2025).

Why for Boston: add a slew of 2nd to fill roster spots cheap, and save about 12 million in salary (they can possible drop 2 tiers in luxury tax,
Saving close to 70 million)
This values 28 at 2 seconds, and Hauser at 2 seconds

i see this deal in combination with a second one:

[Djh7475]

Celtics shouldn’t give up 28 to move Hauser. It will probably be needed to reroute money coming back in any Jrue/KP deal, and Hauser is one of the best off-ball shooters in the league making a good bit less than the MLE with plus defense and size at a position the Celtics actually need guys at.

If the ideas floating around with Jrue to Dallas and Klay/Gafford to Boston end up playing out, I’d rather use 28 to move Klay to a 3rd team in need of shooting. I just think there will be a larger/worse contract that actually needs a 1st included to get rid of whereas I don’t think Hauser should.

[hugepatsfan]

Some team should be willing to take on Hauser's contract. I'll admit to struggling if Boston owes or gets 1 or 2 2nds though. I think the more I think about it the more I believe they will owe them. There are other shooters on the market whose contracts are going to be cheaper/shorter and teams knowing Boston really benefits from moving salary makes me think its going to cost them something.

This is a clever way of trying to not pay to dump him while still adding some value to the team taking him. I think the actual deal is probably just Hauser/32 for fake 2nd though.

I just can't fathom how a guy with Hauser's stat line and contract has to have assets added to him to be absorbed.

I am constantly proven wrong by the NBA so maybe that's the case but I just cannot get the math to work in my head where he's viewed as negative. Even if you factor in teams trying to squeeze Boston knowing the massive cap pressures they're under, the counter-balance would seem to be that he's a really good player that does the thing that every single team can always use more of (3&D) so there should be teams lining up to take him.

He's a neutral to plus defender and he's shot 42%+ from 3 every year he's been in the league. 3/35 left on his deal where he's going to be 28-30 years old. He played good rotation minutes for the team that won the championship last year. I just really can't get my head around it.

Reggie Bullock Jr was a good shooter who played higher level of defense including coming off a deep playoff run where he covered more ground on the court than any other player in the entire Association playing nearly 40 mpg in that run. A year later Dallas gave up a swap to get off one year at slightly less money.

A more proven, more valuable guy cost an asset to dump. Now he didn't have a great year in Dallas before that, but he still was a 30 mpg starter who missed 4 games, shot nearly 40% from 3, and still held up defensively.

so this idea that a part-time with a smaller role and a longer deal might cost something when teams know they are motivated to move him seems not outlandish to me.

Again, they might not have to. Just my thoughts.

It's definitely a fair comparison. Bullock was coming off age 31 season whereas Hauser is signed for prime seasons though. By way of inflation on the cap, Hauser at $10M now is less money than Bullock was that year, comparatively speaking. I don't believe the MLE was available as a mechanism to take back salary back then so there was more scarcity of trade partners which increases price. I also think we're talking about totally different caliber of shooters here... Hauser is legit one of the best in the game whereas Bullock was someone who shot decent percentages being spoon fed only open looks from Luka.

After SA bought him out, he was basically out of the league. Minimum deal on a non contender with no minutes. I remember being floored by that. I was pissed BOS didn't just take him back in the Grant Williams deal to keep the swap, though I understood ducking the 2nd apron (for a time, they ended up going over anyway for Jrue later which annoys me to this day and I wish they just kept him). I don't understand why, but the league was obviously very low on Bullock. If BOS released Hauser today, I'm pretty confident he'd get more than a 1 year minimum deal which was what the league thought of Bullock at that time, thus I'm confident he has more trade value.

[LightTheBeam]

I dont see sac as a landing spot for Hauser at all. Too much huerter ptsd, and we badly need to prioritize defense

[Texas Chuck]

thus I'm confident he has more trade value.

Me too. I definitely don't think Boston would have to give up a 1st round swap. Of course I was telling people Bullock Jr was at worst neutral matching before that deal, so I was way way off on how the league saw him. He feel completely off a cliff and clearly whatever caused that was seen by the league as a whole.

I just think the presence on the market of guys like Beasley, THJ, GTJ, etc who can all make shots at a high enough rate, plus Grayson Allen almost certainly available in trade might make teams say I don't have to pay even his relatively small salary to fill that role much less give assets.

[gswhoops]

thus I'm confident he has more trade value.

Me too. I definitely don't think Boston would have to give up a 1st round swap. Of course I was telling people Bullock Jr was at worst neutral matching before that deal, so I was way way off on how the league saw him. He feel completely off a cliff and clearly whatever caused that was seen by the league as a whole.

I just think the presence on the market of guys like Beasley, THJ, GTJ, etc who can all make shots at a high enough rate, plus Grayson Allen almost certainly available in trade might make teams say I don't have to pay even his relatively small salary to fill that role much less give assets.

Yeah this is basically where I'm at too. I think Boston could dump Hauser's salary without paying for it (especially since he fits into the MLE), but I don't think they'd get assets back for him outside of a fake 2nd or some cash. Hauser is better than Hardaway or Gary Trent but not so much better that you'd be willing to pay him more and pay assets on top to acquire him.

[cl2117]

thus I'm confident he has more trade value.

Me too. I definitely don't think Boston would have to give up a 1st round swap. Of course I was telling people Bullock Jr was at worst neutral matching before that deal, so I was way way off on how the league saw him. He feel completely off a cliff and clearly whatever caused that was seen by the league as a whole.

I just think the presence on the market of guys like Beasley, THJ, GTJ, etc who can all make shots at a high enough rate, plus Grayson Allen almost certainly available in trade might make teams say I don't have to pay even his relatively small salary to fill that role much less give assets.

Yeah this is basically where I'm at too. I think Boston could dump Hauser's salary without paying for it (especially since he fits into the MLE), but I don't think they'd get assets back for him outside of a fake 2nd or some cash. Hauser is better than Hardaway or Gary Trent but not so much better that you'd be willing to pay him more and pay assets on top to acquire him.

What do you think Beasley is getting as a FA? I honestly don't know, but I saw a guy who covers the Pistons writing for the Athletic that it could be in the $15-18m range. I've got Beasley and Hauser as similar value (Beasley the better scorer/Hauser the better shooter and defender) but wouldn't be surprised if Beasley was making 50% more than Sam.

I think the gap between THJ/Trent is at least a 2nd or two but appreciate people may value it differently (especially if those two come in significantly cheaper). Hauser's worst 3PT% year is better than any of that trio's career best year and he's actually a solid to good defender.

I can kind of see how he could end up being just a pure salary dump but if he's viewed as a negative I really struggle to understand what counts as positive value for veteran players around his skill level/pay grade (I know you're not saying he's negative, I'm just speaking more generally and not just about Hauser).

[hugepatsfan]

Even if al the guys mentioned - THJ/Beasley/GTJ/Allen - for just FA money or taken back for free in a trade are seen as better options than Hauser, that's 4 players. Take BOS out since they can't trade Hauser to themselves and there's still2 5 potential buyers. And I'd say shooters with size and defensive chops are an in demand commodity overall.

I feel like Hauser has been mentioned on here to a lot of DIFFERENT teams for free and most say "yeah that makes sense". The fact that there are just so many teams out there where he makes solid sense to add for free makes me optimistic that one of them says ok fine we'll throw you a 2nd or two to be the winning bid. But we shall see.

I also don't think BOS wants to move him. I expect Jrue and/or Porzingis to be dealt. Due to the East being so weak and what I presume is a desire to jump right back to competing, I feel like BOS is only going to duck the 2nd apron as opposed to the tax altogether and I'm optimistic they can do that without moving Hauser because they have flexibility to take back longer term money in a Jrue deal which I think makes it manageable to shed the $24M they need to between him and Porzingis.

[jbk1234]

The Kings have Lavine, Monk, and DDR. This needs a third team that actually needs a shooter and will give the Kings something that will help balance the roster.

[hugepatsfan]

The Kings have Lavine, Monk, and DDR. This needs a third team that actually needs a shooter and will give the Kings something that will help balance the roster.

I think that would be part of the appeal for Hauser to them. All the guys you listed are SGs and you're compromised defensively playing them as SFs. Hauser is an actual SF and can play some PF. He is roster balance for them.

[jbk1234]

The Kings have Lavine, Monk, and DDR. This needs a third team that actually needs a shooter and will give the Kings something that will help balance the roster.

I think that would be part of the appeal for Hauser to them. All the guys you listed are SGs and you're compromised defensively playing them as SFs. Hauser is an actual SF and can play some PF. He is roster balance for them.

That's not the side of the ball they need help on.