RealGM

Siakam for LaVine/26 1st unprotected /28 1st some protection/Minny 30 1st unprotected

Kings go all in on the Sabonis era.

Sabonis/Siakam/Murray/DDR/Dennis - Ellis/Clifford/Rayaud

Pacers look to the late 2026 and beyond for a return to the finals by loading up on picks, getting a bridge contract and letting their young guys flourish. When Hali is fully back to his old form (27) they are in a great position.

I was prepared to think this was something Indiana should not do, but getting unprotected Kings picks is probably worth it. LaVine on a cheaper deal would be nice next to Hali, and maybe Walker can grow into a larger role. If he can't, they have sufficient pick value to move for another player to replace Siakam. I am not saying Indiana shouldl do it (well, I think they should), but it would not be egregious.

For Sacramento - I would not do it - but it would at least lead to an interesting and much better balanced team. In principal, I like the four man combination of Ellis-Murray-Siakam-Sabonis. I think it just requires the right player at "point guard" to bring it together into something interesting. Honestly, I would not hate them following up with Monk + Schroder for Quickley.

coulda got him couple years ago if Kings were willing to pay more than huerter/barnes and a first instead of disparaging his game. Seem like a heavy price to pay now for him 2 years older

babyjax13 wrote:I was prepared to think this was something Indiana should not do, but getting unprotected Kings picks is probably worth it. LaVine on a cheaper deal would be nice next to Hali, and maybe Walker can grow into a larger role. If he can't, they have sufficient pick value to move for another player to replace Siakam. I am not saying Indiana shouldl do it (well, I think they should), but it would not be egregious.

For Sacramento - I would not do it - but it would at least lead to an interesting and much better balanced team. In principal, I like the four man combination of Ellis-Murray-Siakam-Sabonis. I think it just requires the right player at "point guard" to bring it together into something interesting. Honestly, I would not hate them following up with Monk + Schroder for Quickley.

Toronto just moved on from Schroder to give IQ a starting spot not too long ago. Why would we go backwards? Monk and Dennis doesn't provide the spacing we need next to Barnes/Poeltl. Makes zero sense for Toronto team that is trying to win

This is the type of deal I would be happy about our team making. We would be right up to the Tax with LaVine's trade kicker, though I think we could still make it work.

For the Kings, I guess this works on paper, but they are still a player away from being considered a fringe contender. The direction makes little to no sense.

Godaddycurse wrote:coulda got him couple years ago if Kings were willing to pay more than huerter/barnes and a first instead of disparaging his game. Seem like a heavy price to pay now for him 2 years older now

But also locked into a deal - I imagine they were afraid they couldn't resign him ... which is a pretty reasonable fear for where they were, IMO.

Godaddycurse wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:I was prepared to think this was something Indiana should not do, but getting unprotected Kings picks is probably worth it. LaVine on a cheaper deal would be nice next to Hali, and maybe Walker can grow into a larger role. If he can't, they have sufficient pick value to move for another player to replace Siakam. I am not saying Indiana shouldl do it (well, I think they should), but it would not be egregious.

For Sacramento - I would not do it - but it would at least lead to an interesting and much better balanced team. In principal, I like the four man combination of Ellis-Murray-Siakam-Sabonis. I think it just requires the right player at "point guard" to bring it together into something interesting. Honestly, I would not hate them following up with Monk + Schroder for Quickley.

Toronto just moved on from Schroder to give IQ a starting spot not too long ago. Why would we go backwards? Monk and Dennis doesn't provide the spacing we need next to Barnes/Poeltl. Makes zero sense for Toronto team that is trying to win

To get a mulligan on the contract. But, I hate basically everything Toronto has done since drafting Barnes (I do like Agbaji for them) and I know you don't share that assessment.

babyjax13 wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:coulda got him couple years ago if Kings were willing to pay more than huerter/barnes and a first instead of disparaging his game. Seem like a heavy price to pay now for him 2 years older now

But also locked into a deal - I imagine they were afraid they couldn't resign him ... which is a pretty reasonable fear for where they were, IMO.

Reports/rumors were Siakam refused to sign with them because they were badmouthing his game to try to drive down the trade/contract price or something along that line.

babyjax13 wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:I was prepared to think this was something Indiana should not do, but getting unprotected Kings picks is probably worth it. LaVine on a cheaper deal would be nice next to Hali, and maybe Walker can grow into a larger role. If he can't, they have sufficient pick value to move for another player to replace Siakam. I am not saying Indiana shouldl do it (well, I think they should), but it would not be egregious.

For Sacramento - I would not do it - but it would at least lead to an interesting and much better balanced team. In principal, I like the four man combination of Ellis-Murray-Siakam-Sabonis. I think it just requires the right player at "point guard" to bring it together into something interesting. Honestly, I would not hate them following up with Monk + Schroder for Quickley.

Toronto just moved on from Schroder to give IQ a starting spot not too long ago. Why would we go backwards? Monk and Dennis doesn't provide the spacing we need next to Barnes/Poeltl. Makes zero sense for Toronto team that is trying to win

To get a mulligan on the contract.

I don't think Toronto considers the Quickley contract bad or needing a mulligan. Nothing Quickley did last year on the court suggests otherwise.

Godaddycurse wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:coulda got him couple years ago if Kings were willing to pay more than huerter/barnes and a first instead of disparaging his game. Seem like a heavy price to pay now for him 2 years older now

But also locked into a deal - I imagine they were afraid they couldn't resign him ... which is a pretty reasonable fear for where they were, IMO.

Reports/rumors were Siakam refused to sign with them because they were badmouthing his game to try to drive down the trade/contract price or something along that line.

Ah, I forgot about that! Yah, he might not be a happy camper in that case.

babyjax13 wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:I was prepared to think this was something Indiana should not do, but getting unprotected Kings picks is probably worth it. LaVine on a cheaper deal would be nice next to Hali, and maybe Walker can grow into a larger role. If he can't, they have sufficient pick value to move for another player to replace Siakam. I am not saying Indiana shouldl do it (well, I think they should), but it would not be egregious.

For Sacramento - I would not do it - but it would at least lead to an interesting and much better balanced team. In principal, I like the four man combination of Ellis-Murray-Siakam-Sabonis. I think it just requires the right player at "point guard" to bring it together into something interesting. Honestly, I would not hate them following up with Monk + Schroder for Quickley.

Toronto just moved on from Schroder to give IQ a starting spot not too long ago. Why would we go backwards? Monk and Dennis doesn't provide the spacing we need next to Barnes/Poeltl. Makes zero sense for Toronto team that is trying to win

To get a mulligan on the contract.

Its not a mulligan when they combine to make more for the next few years. IQ's contact is flat too so it will be decent value by year 3-5 of its deal. This is a major downgrade on court for us

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
Toronto just moved on from Schroder to give IQ a starting spot not too long ago. Why would we go backwards? Monk and Dennis doesn't provide the spacing we need next to Barnes/Poeltl. Makes zero sense for Toronto team that is trying to win

To get a mulligan on the contract.

I don't think Toronto considers the Quickley contract bad or needing a mulligan. Nothing Quickley did last year on the court suggests otherwise.

I don't think they consider any of their contracts to be bad. I don't hate Quickley, and I think of their players they signed he is most likely to be worth his money - but ... it is really rich for what he has shown historically.

Godaddycurse wrote:coulda got him couple years ago if Kings were willing to pay more than huerter/barnes and a first instead of disparaging his game. Seem like a heavy price to pay now for him 2 years older now

Seemed more like it was also Siakam pushing to Indy in that process, too?

babyjax13 wrote:I was prepared to think this was something Indiana should not do, but getting unprotected Kings picks is probably worth it. LaVine on a cheaper deal would be nice next to Hali, and maybe Walker can grow into a larger role. If he can't, they have sufficient pick value to move for another player to replace Siakam. I am not saying Indiana shouldl do it (well, I think they should), but it would not be egregious.

For Sacramento - I would not do it - but it would at least lead to an interesting and much better balanced team. In principal, I like the four man combination of Ellis-Murray-Siakam-Sabonis. I think it just requires the right player at "point guard" to bring it together into something interesting. Honestly, I would not hate them following up with Monk + Schroder for Quickley.

That player option probably just kills any discussion here. Especially as it means that Indy then is proceeding with no answer long-term at the 4 or the 5. That's a lot of "unknown" that I just don't think Indy can afford to lock in?

Also, while it at least includes that unprotected 1st this year, I think a Murray/Siakam/Sabonis front court is a playoff team. Like, Siakam probably stabilizes a lot there and helps them excel?

Godaddycurse wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
Toronto just moved on from Schroder to give IQ a starting spot not too long ago. Why would we go backwards? Monk and Dennis doesn't provide the spacing we need next to Barnes/Poeltl. Makes zero sense for Toronto team that is trying to win

To get a mulligan on the contract.

Its not a mulligan when they combine to make more for the next few years. IQ's contact is flat too so it will be decent value by year 3-5 of its deal. This is a major downgrade on court for us

Yes, it is a major downgrade, and it is also a year off the back end and two contracts that are individually more tradeable.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:This is the type of deal I would be happy about our team making. We would be right up to the Tax with LaVine's trade kicker, though I think we could still make it work.

LaVine's trade kicker was already triggered, and is now voided. It can only be exercised, or not exercised, at the first trade in the existence of that contract.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:coulda got him couple years ago if Kings were willing to pay more than huerter/barnes and a first instead of disparaging his game. Seem like a heavy price to pay now for him 2 years older now

Seemed more like it was also Siakam pushing to Indy in that process, too?

Indiana was willing to max him which is why he pushed to Indy imo. If Sacramento valued him like Indy did then i dont think he would mind very much. He wanted a max deal and refused to go where it wasn't offered

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:coulda got him couple years ago if Kings were willing to pay more than huerter/barnes and a first instead of disparaging his game. Seem like a heavy price to pay now for him 2 years older now

Seemed more like it was also Siakam pushing to Indy in that process, too?

babyjax13 wrote:I was prepared to think this was something Indiana should not do, but getting unprotected Kings picks is probably worth it. LaVine on a cheaper deal would be nice next to Hali, and maybe Walker can grow into a larger role. If he can't, they have sufficient pick value to move for another player to replace Siakam. I am not saying Indiana shouldl do it (well, I think they should), but it would not be egregious.

For Sacramento - I would not do it - but it would at least lead to an interesting and much better balanced team. In principal, I like the four man combination of Ellis-Murray-Siakam-Sabonis. I think it just requires the right player at "point guard" to bring it together into something interesting. Honestly, I would not hate them following up with Monk + Schroder for Quickley.

That player option probably just kills any discussion here. Especially as it means that Indy then is proceeding with no answer long-term at the 4 or the 5. That's a lot of "unknown" that I just don't think Indy can afford to lock in?

Also, while it at least includes that unprotected 1st this year, I think a Murray/Siakam/Sabonis front court is a playoff team. Like, Siakam probably stabilizes a lot there and helps them excel?

I am not sure in the West it is. I think it has a good chance, but the West is brutal. Plus it is more than just the 2026 pick, and it likely ensures the 2026 pick that Indiana has (of its own) is top 6-7 at worst. I think there are several ways where this pays off and the uncertainty isn't that great. LaVine would have one more year making what he does now and Indiana would have the option to move some other pieces + picks for the starting 4 they need (or draft one, or see of Walker grows into it), or they could aggregate an expiring LaVine with assets for someone else. I think in the end they come out ahead, asset wise. But assets aren't the only reason to make a decision, especially as Hali + Siakam seems to be a 'sum is greater than the parts' situation.

There could be a way that this works out to Indiana having a top 4 pick without Siakam, or something more like 8-10 with him. In that case, it is probably worth it to have the higher pick and the additional draft assets?

I wonder if both teams would rather do something like
Demar + Monk + Picks for Siakam.

For Sac the idea is LaVine on paper fits better with Sabonis/Siakam.
Schroder - LaVine - Keegan - Siakam - Sabonis
Carter - Keon - Nique - Jones - Maxime

For Indiana, they would try and find a new home for Demar at the deadline, and more than likely a new home for Monk at some point over the next year. But he would fit in great next to Nembhard if they did decide to keep him.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

ReggiesKnicks wrote:This is the type of deal I would be happy about our team making. We would be right up to the Tax with LaVine's trade kicker, though I think we could still make it work.

LaVine's trade kicker was already triggered, and is now voided. It can only be exercised, or not exercised, at the first trade in the existence of that contract.

Good to know it is not like a no-trade clause. Thanks!

Godaddycurse wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:coulda got him couple years ago if Kings were willing to pay more than huerter/barnes and a first instead of disparaging his game. Seem like a heavy price to pay now for him 2 years older now

Seemed more like it was also Siakam pushing to Indy in that process, too?

Indiana was willing to max him which is why he pushed to Indy imo. If Sacramento valued him like Indy did then i dont think he would mind very much. He wanted a max deal and refused to go where it wasn't offered

Per reports, he also wanted to play with a center that he felt best stretched the floor, and a PG that would put him in position to succeed. Sacramento offered like a quarter of each of those two requests?