Kevin Martin?

[Krapinsky]

Sac town really should just clean house and build around Evans, Thompson, and Hawes. I see them in kind of the position we were in last year.

Portland is 2 years ahead of us --
OKC is a year ahead of us --
I have no idea what where Memphis is or what they are doing

Kings I think are a year behind us -- they need to make the Miller/Foye type move and start clearing out contracts. Why pay an extra $50 million for maybe 30 wins each year over the next two years instead of 20-25?

Here's my plan to rebuild the Kings ---

Trade 1 w/ Knicks:
Francisco Garcia, Kenny Thomas, Sergio Rodriguez ==> Eddy Curry, Wilson Chandler, Duhon

Trade 2 w/ Utah:
Kevin Martin, Adris Nocioni ==> Kirilenko, Maynor

Kings this year --

Maynor/Duhon/Udrih
Evans/FA
Kirilenko/Chandler/Green
Thompson/Kirilenko/Brockman
Hawes/Curry

Kings after 2 years --

Maynor/Udrih
Evans
Chandler
Thompson/Brockman
Hawes

+ 2 top 10 picks (2011, 2012) and lots of cap space

[gensu3k1]

I think the Maloofs have to do this deal if they're moving to vegas. Flynn, Evans, Thompson, Hawes + 15-20 mil in cap room+ VEGAS= number one free agency player.

[rpa]

Ugh. OK, my issue has been this "financial head in the sand" stuff I've been reading from the Kings posters the last couple of days. This isn't wishful thinking here - I'm no fan of Kevin Martin.

I've read trade board posts from SAC posters who think you could get Al Jefferson for him, which was openly mocked by everyone else.

I've read SAC posters who think they can attach Beno Udrih, and still get Love. Again -- ridiciulous.

No less ridiculous than "expirings and a cheap pick"

And now, you're ignoring the possiblity that your team could get sold to a new buyer. What precursors are you immune to?

Possibility? Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass. You try to mock me with your "fairy tale world" garbage then try to base your entire argument on something you pulled straight out of your ass. Classy.

1. You have one of the poorest owners in the NBA

Hard to say, the last time anyone actually did an indepth look at owners' net worths was half a decade ago

2. Those owners lost a large portion of their net worth in the world's economic decline.

So did just about every owner.

3. Owners selling teams have cut their salaries (and yes, into the $30's) by moving talented players with big long contracts before.

See above. You can't use this as a reason when you're pulling "the Maloofs may sell the team" out of your ass.

So why is SAC immune? Why is this ridiculous for the Kings, but it has happened to other owners?

Sac isn't immune. What you apparently fail to realize is (and this needs to be said again):
1) There have been no legitimate sources claiming the Maloofs are going to sell the team
2) Trading Martin for cash doesn't make the team worth more, it makes it worth considerably less because it impacts the bottom line of the team.
3) The figure quoted ($36mil) is actually UNDER the NBA's minimum team salary. In fact, even if the salary cap dropped $8mil next year (to $50mil) $36mil STILL falls under the minimum. Not only would the team get killed media wise but they'd also end up paying a surcharge (read fine). So your attempt to get them so far under the cap doesn't even succeed due to the CBA.

[shrink]

You crack me up.

Your definition of "fairy tale world" is "RPA hasn't heard it and doesn't want to believe it!"

My definition is "It is illegal under the CBA"

[rpa]

You crack me up.

Your definition of "fairy tale world" is "RPA hasn't heard it and doesn't want to believe it!"

My definition is "It is illegal under the CBA"

So care to post something that's remotely credible claiming the Maloofs are getting ready to sell the team? Since that is, in essence, the entire foundation of your argument.

[shrink]

Let me give this one last attempt, after that, I'm pretty much through with you:

Do you remember the Memphis Grizzlies? MEM wanted to make their team more marketable, because their poor owner couldn't take the revenue losses. They traded their star player (a better big man WITHOUT injury history, btw) for youth and expirings, to make their team more marketable.

If MIN lsoes $20 mil this year, their owner has a net worth of $2 billion .. he can take it. If the Maloofs lose $20 mil, they are worth .. together .. what? $100 mil? $120?

There is NBA precedent here for this type of trade, and your position is remarkably similar. You can ignore it all you want, or try lines like "Well, everyone is hurting!" when you know that these losses are far more painful to your ownership.

Acting like this is impossible, when its happened in the past, seems to me like you're just putting your head in the sand.

[rpa]

Let me give this one last attempt, after that, I'm pretty much through with you:

Do you remember the Memphis Grizzlies? MEM wanted to make their team more marketable, because their poor owner couldn't take the revenue losses. They traded their star player (a better big man WITHOUT injury history, btw) for youth and expirings, to make their team more marketable.

If MIN lsoes $20 mil this year, their owner has a net worth of $2 billion .. he can take it. If the Maloofs lose $20 mil, they are worth .. together .. what? $100 mil? $120?

There is NBA precedent here for this type of trade, and your position is remarkably similar. You can ignore it all you want, or try lines like "Well, everyone is hurting!" when you know that these losses are far more painful to your ownership.

Acting like this is impossible, when its happened in the past, seems to me like you're just putting your head in the sand.

You're a joke. Seriously. You base your entire argument on your own little deluded fantasies. I ask you to provide a SINGLE, legitimate source that supports the FOUNDATION OF YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT and you can't

[shrink]

Let me give this one last attempt, after that, I'm pretty much through with you:

Do you remember the Memphis Grizzlies? MEM wanted to make their team more marketable, because their poor owner couldn't take the revenue losses. They traded their star player (a better big man WITHOUT injury history, btw) for youth and expirings, to make their team more marketable.

If MIN lsoes $20 mil this year, their owner has a net worth of $2 billion .. he can take it. If the Maloofs lose $20 mil, they are worth .. together .. what? $100 mil? $120?

There is NBA precedent here for this type of trade, and your position is remarkably similar. You can ignore it all you want, or try lines like "Well, everyone is hurting!" when you know that these losses are far more painful to your ownership.

Acting like this is impossible, when its happened in the past, seems to me like you're just putting your head in the sand.

You're a joke. Seriously. You base your entire argument on your own little deluded fantasies. I ask you to provide a SINGLE, legitimate source that supports the FOUNDATION OF YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT and you can't

Kind of the response I expected.

Well, if they haven't informed fans like RPA, it must be a deluded fantasy!

Forget its happened before! Chewing up $20 mil is hardly important! That could never happen without the Kings front office informing the media and most importantly, RPA first!

[rpa]

Kind of the response I expected.

Well, if they haven't informed fans like RPA, it must be a deluded fantasy!

Forget its happened before! Chewing up $20 mil is hardly important! That could never happen without informing the important RPA first!

It's a deluded fantasy (of yours) when you can't provide a single source to support your argument that the Maloofs are looking to sell the team.

[shrink]

You don't despute that most of the same factors are in place that were the same for the Grizzlies. The economics, low revenues, low net worth owners, one big star with lots of youth, and on top of this, a tightening economic vice and arena issues! ..

The factors are all there, and your argument is .. "I haven't heard about it"

[rpa]

You don't despute that most of the same factors are in place that were the same for the Grizzlies. The economics, low revenues, low net worth owners, one big star with lots of youth, and on top of this, a tightening economic vice ..

The factors are all there, and your argument is .. "I haven't heard about it"

You fail to ignore a key fact here: Heisley had been trying to sell the Grizzlies for YEARS:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2792474

apparently since the fall of 2006; WELL before the hard economic times. Heisley is the exact opposite in terms of ownership than the Maloofs. He's a guy who runs it like a business. In using him as an example you're displaying how truly clueless you are of the situation.


EDIT:

BTW, "low net worth owners" isn't a similar factor. You may want to look up how much Heisley's worth.

[tvwolves7]

I do not think we will ever see an extreme trade like Pau Gasol just for expirings. That being said, I think that Kevin Martin and other players on teams that have owners net worths at around $100 Million could be traded for little value in return. K. Martin being one of them.

[Esohny]

Oh boy...

[tvwolves7]

You don't despute that most of the same factors are in place that were the same for the Grizzlies. The economics, low revenues, low net worth owners, one big star with lots of youth, and on top of this, a tightening economic vice ..

The factors are all there, and your argument is .. "I haven't heard about it"

You fail to ignore a key fact here: Heisley had been trying to sell the Grizzlies for YEARS:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2792474

apparently since the fall of 2006; WELL before the hard economic times. Heisley is the exact opposite in terms of ownership than the Maloofs. He's a guy who runs it like a business. In using him as an example you're displaying how truly clueless you are of the situation.


EDIT:

BTW, "low net worth owners" isn't a similar factor. You may want to look up how much Heisley's worth.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/127702

The link above does show that the Maloofs have no interest in selling the team. However, it does show deep losses, mounting up to $25 million. Now going further down in the article you find out that they have already made cuts in their administration and are in need of a new stadium. They are already taking steps to try and reduce this, but the obvious next step is to cut salary, i.e. Kevin Martin or Udrih. We all know which will be easier to move.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba ... owners.htm

This is from 2004-2005, it shows an estimated net worth of the Maloof brothers combined at $200 million. With how Las Vegas has been going I would assume their net worth is lower from this mark, but lets just assume that they are flat and still worth $200 million. The Kings are losing them potentially 12.5% of their net worth next year. Who knows how long this economic turmoil will go.

So that being said, I am not guaranteeing anything but I think Shrink has valid points that with the team having large losses and the economy as is it would not be impossible for the Kings to look to save money for the next few years. It is not a great PR move, but the Maloofs are business men. The Kings have been a toy for a long time for them, but in this economy they would be wise to limit their losses.

[Krapinsky]

Aren't the Maloof only majority owners though? They don't suffer 100% of the losses, whatever their partnership agreement is.

Moreover, the Maloof family has a total net worth $1 billion. So if they are pinched too hard, they probably have a relative or two that can help them out with their business.

[tvwolves7]

Aren't the Maloof only majority owners though? They don't suffer 100% of the losses, whatever their partnership agreement is.

Moreover, the Maloof family has a total net worth $1 billion. So if they are pinched too hard, they probably have a relative or two that can help them out with their business.

Did not know that of either.

[JMillott]

I have to agree with the Kings fan here Shrink.

They are already under the cap and giving away Martin without dumping Udrih in the process would fall under the veil of pointless because they'd be forced by the CBA to turn around and sign enough players to bring them right back up to the minimum anyway and would be hard pressed to get anybody as good as Martin to sign with them after doing so.

They already had their firesale least season basically giving away John Salmons in order to dump Brad Miller basically doing what the Grizzlies should've done by giving away a lesser asset in order to dump Darko Millic sooner instead of just giving away Pau Gasol.

I don't think we'll ever see a team do a deal like the one the Grizzlies did with Gasol unless the player isn't worth having like a Zach Randolph. I'm not a huge Kevin Martin fan myself at least i'm not buying into the "he's one of the most underrated players in the NBA" line of thinking that many people seam to believe but he is worth his contract.

I also kind of do subscribe to the line of thinking that he can play with Tyreke Evans in fact I actually rather think it could be a brilliant pairing. Every team should have at least two guys that get to the line consistently and having two guys that could finish in the top 10 at it from the guard positions might make up for being soft at almost every other position.

The only band-aid availible to that franchise right now is to put a better product on the floor to bring back the fans. They aren't that far away from putting a decent product on the floor again and with Kenny Thomas coming off the books they'll only have one bad contract by next season in Udrih.

Udrih is overpaid but he isn't entirely impossible to trade in a league that has seen Mike James traded on almost the same contract what three or four times now?