16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
- City of Trees
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 15,876
- And1: 5,531
- Joined: Dec 23, 2009
- Location: Roseville, CA
-
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
Eating $20M in cap space for three years is worth more than one pick in the #25-#30 range. I need more.
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
OGSactownballer
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,764
- And1: 1,386
- Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
jazanetti wrote:I see nothing criminal in Wall's words. He admitted that Porter is good enough while George is super-star. It's true and if you have a chance to get that calibre player, you have to do everything for it.
In any case Washington wouldn't let Porter go, but we lose nothing making him max offer.
No I agree with PUS and SB comments just before yours.
These guys are competitive athletes. Porter was the starter for the team that gave Cleveland their toughest push this year. It's insulting to have a teammate talk that way in the press about you.
As far as how much Porter is worth, well I look at it this way. Porter just finished his first year as the full time starter and posted his best numbers as one of the better two-way SF's in the league. And that was also with one of the highest 3-PT %'s as well. And he is 24 so his peak years are still ahead of him. As a comparison to the guy that Wall would have replace him, he's about a year or two older on about the same track as Paul George. Now I'm not saying that I expect that ceiling out of him, but I'd rather have him than most guys because he plays in the top group at his position and does so efficiently and at both ends. He also fits our timeline perfectly long term.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
dckingsfan
- RealGM
- Posts: 35,448
- And1: 20,786
- Joined: May 28, 2010
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
Sactowndog wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Sactowndog wrote:The max for Porter is too much but he has improved every year and you can make an aggressive offer for him. It might put the wizards in a tough spot.
No, the Wizards will put the Wizards in a tough spot and offer more to Porter than any other team
I'm not sure that is a bad thing. I'm okay with waiting a year or two to see how our young guys progress, who will be good and who will be a bust. It may not be the people we think now. For example, I looked at Papa's stats and was presently surprised.
Sometimes you have to keep your powder dry until you see the whites of their eyes.
This - in a way this is what the Wizards did and then blew it last season. They took their time and let Wall/Beal/Porter develop.
But then they went big into FA with Nicholson and Mahinmi
My two cents: Let the young guys develop and then add around them. Who are those young guys that will develop? We will know in 2019.
In the meantime - stash assets.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
dckingsfan
- RealGM
- Posts: 35,448
- And1: 20,786
- Joined: May 28, 2010
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
OGSactownballer wrote:jazanetti wrote:I see nothing criminal in Wall's words. He admitted that Porter is good enough while George is super-star. It's true and if you have a chance to get that calibre player, you have to do everything for it.
In any case Washington wouldn't let Porter go, but we lose nothing making him max offer.
No I agree with PUS and SB comments just before yours.
These guys are competitive athletes. Porter was the starter for the team that gave Cleveland their toughest push this year. It's insulting to have a teammate talk that way in the press about you.
As far as how much Porter is worth, well I look at it this way. Porter just finished his first year as the full time starter and posted his best numbers as one of the better two-way SF's in the league. And that was also with one of the highest 3-PT %'s as well. And he is 24 so his peak years are still ahead of him. As a comparison to the guy that Wall would have replace him, he's about a year or two older on about the same track as Paul George. Now I'm not saying that I expect that ceiling out of him, but I'd rather have him than most guys because he plays in the top group at his position and does so efficiently and at both ends. He also fits our timeline perfectly long term.
I don't think Wall wants to replace Porter. He wants to add George to Porter. I doubt he has thought through all the cap ramifications.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
enderwilson
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 778
- And1: 152
- Joined: Jun 23, 2011
-
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
When it comes to Ryan Anderson, I say yes. As long as it comes with the requested assets, I think he could be a good contributing vet.
Otto Porter? On the surface, yes again, but I don't know anything about the guy's character.
I'm for adding vets that contribute to the growth of the youth. I hear the arguments for playing time, but no one seems to care about the toll that losses take on the development of players. Kenny Smith stated the exact same concern on draft night, and being a former player and current NBA analyst I have a lot of faith that The Jet knows what he's talking about.
So if we can add quality vets to eat up cap space and add assets, this is the best possible direction for the Kings and development of our youth.
Otto Porter? On the surface, yes again, but I don't know anything about the guy's character.
I'm for adding vets that contribute to the growth of the youth. I hear the arguments for playing time, but no one seems to care about the toll that losses take on the development of players. Kenny Smith stated the exact same concern on draft night, and being a former player and current NBA analyst I have a lot of faith that The Jet knows what he's talking about.
So if we can add quality vets to eat up cap space and add assets, this is the best possible direction for the Kings and development of our youth.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
- City of Trees
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 15,876
- And1: 5,531
- Joined: Dec 23, 2009
- Location: Roseville, CA
-
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
Well Houston just traded their assets away to LAC for CP3. Wonder if they still want to move Anderson? Earliest pick HOU can deal is 2020 1st. I would pass.
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
Sactowndog
- Kings Forum Mock Draft Champ
- Posts: 4,486
- And1: 1,832
- Joined: May 27, 2017
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
City of Trees wrote:Well Houston just traded their assets away to LAC for CP3. Wonder if they still want to move Anderson? Earliest pick HOU can deal is 2020 1st. I would pass.
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Yep so it also means San Antonio now has no need to clear cap space. Feel bad for KL. Best player in the league with no chance to compete against Houston or GS.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
rpa
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,084
- And1: 7,901
- Joined: Nov 24, 2006
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
City of Trees wrote:Eating $20M in cap space for three years is worth more than one pick in the #25-#30 range. I need more.
This x 1000
In years past I seem to remember (might be wrong) that most of these salary dumps were expiring or 2 year deals. It's interesting that teams are regretting those contracts (Deng, Mozgov, Turner, Crabbe, etc.) so quickly this summer and think they can dump them for roughly the same cost as it used to take to dump a 1-2 year deal. If I'm the Kings there's no way I'm taking up massive amounts of my cap for what's likely to be a role player.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
- codydaze
- Forum Mod - Kings

- Posts: 6,543
- And1: 5,077
- Joined: Jul 06, 2013
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
Sactowndog wrote:City of Trees wrote:Well Houston just traded their assets away to LAC for CP3. Wonder if they still want to move Anderson? Earliest pick HOU can deal is 2020 1st. I would pass.
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Yep so it also means San Antonio now has no need to clear cap space. Feel bad for KL. Best player in the league with no chance to compete against Houston or GS.
The basketball fan in me is hoping they go after Kyle Lowry. I think he would be a good fit too with SA. Whatever they do, they need to get rid of LMA.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
SacKingZZZ
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,085
- And1: 1,084
- Joined: Feb 19, 2005
- Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
codydaze wrote:Sactowndog wrote:City of Trees wrote:Well Houston just traded their assets away to LAC for CP3. Wonder if they still want to move Anderson? Earliest pick HOU can deal is 2020 1st. I would pass.
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Yep so it also means San Antonio now has no need to clear cap space. Feel bad for KL. Best player in the league with no chance to compete against Houston or GS.
The basketball fan in me is hoping they go after Kyle Lowry. I think he would be a good fit too with SA. Whatever they do, they need to get rid of LMA.
That would be a good move. SA is in a strange spot. If there is truth to the LMA rumors then possibly rebuilding on the fly might be in order. I think they can still salvage something though. For some reason I see them in major pursuit of Blake Griffin.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
- City of Trees
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 15,876
- And1: 5,531
- Joined: Dec 23, 2009
- Location: Roseville, CA
-
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
Lowe says at least two teams wanted two 1st round picks for Ryan Anderson.
I knew no one would take that contract for free.
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
I knew no one would take that contract for free.
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
VeganKingsFan
- Junior
- Posts: 288
- And1: 81
- Joined: May 09, 2017
-
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
I just thought of something. I think the leaks about the Kings being interested in some of the higher end free agents is a smokescreen. It is to show teams that want to unload cap space on us that we value our cap space and that we hold all the cards and not them. The Kings can basically tell other teams that they could use that space on these free agents, so they better pony up some good draft picks if they plan on unloading their bad contracts. It creates more of a scarcity in the market for salary absorption. The only other team who wants to take on salary is the Nets, so we can drive up the price of cap space.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
dozencousins
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,031
- And1: 135
- Joined: Jan 11, 2007
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
From what I heard today it is very possible that soon Koufas could be getting traded .
I don't know any direct deal or team .
I was told 2 days we were talking to the Spurs , Blazers , Rockets & Detroit were still calling about him . However that said I know nothing more & should I hear anything further I will update this unless something breaks before I can update .
I do know that the Kings are looking for a future pick or take on a contract of position of need and not for more than 2-3 seasons as also player must be a younger vet . That is what we would be looking for as of now .
Kings want to give Stein & Pappa most of the minutes at Center
I don't know any direct deal or team .
I was told 2 days we were talking to the Spurs , Blazers , Rockets & Detroit were still calling about him . However that said I know nothing more & should I hear anything further I will update this unless something breaks before I can update .
I do know that the Kings are looking for a future pick or take on a contract of position of need and not for more than 2-3 seasons as also player must be a younger vet . That is what we would be looking for as of now .
Kings want to give Stein & Pappa most of the minutes at Center
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
SacKingZZZ
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,085
- And1: 1,084
- Joined: Feb 19, 2005
- Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
I forgot about Kosta. Yeah, I could totally see teams interested in him on his deal. He's making what equates to MLE this year. I wonder if the Kings can drum up any sign and trade business with him as bait.
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
- KingsMilz
- Sophomore
- Posts: 144
- And1: 23
- Joined: Dec 12, 2013
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
I would try trade for Marcus Morris (who is on a insanely cheap deal) or Wilson Chandler to be our starting SF this year, I have no idea what we would have to give up but having a grown man sized SF who plays both ends would be good while Jackson develops behind one of them. I'm not sure that Portor is that much better than either and he will make close to 4/5 times more than both.
As a 3rd option I would look into MKG (who has been in trade rumours) so he can be our Tony Allen, although that could be troublesome if in 1-3 years Fox is our starting PG and WCS is our C cause of floor spacing.
As a 3rd option I would look into MKG (who has been in trade rumours) so he can be our Tony Allen, although that could be troublesome if in 1-3 years Fox is our starting PG and WCS is our C cause of floor spacing.
Re: RE: Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
- City of Trees
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 15,876
- And1: 5,531
- Joined: Dec 23, 2009
- Location: Roseville, CA
-
Re: RE: Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
KingsMilz wrote:I would try trade for Marcus Morris (who is on a insanely cheap deal) or Wilson Chandler to be our starting SF this year, I have no idea what we would have to give up but having a grown man sized SF who plays both ends would be good while Jackson develops behind one of them. I'm not sure that Portor is that much better than either and he will make close to 4/5 times more than both.
As a 3rd option I would look into MKG (who has been in trade rumours) so he can be our Tony Allen, although that could be troublesome if in 1-3 years Fox is our starting PG and WCS is our C cause of floor spacing.
Marcus Morris IMO doesn't fit the leadership qualities Kings seek.
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
benchmobbin02
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,976
- And1: 364
- Joined: May 28, 2015
-
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
I just heard David Alridge talking about OKC having talks with us about trading Kanter to us. Didn't say for what or what kind of compensation we'd have asked for. He tied it to OKC looking to make cap room to go after Griffin. Said that it got shot down (I think referring to Blake signing an extension with the Clips.)
My puzzle piece thinking is what if the talks were actually to bring Rudy Gay to OKC in a Sign and Trade with Kanter coming here. The rumors were there that Gay had or would meet with us. He has also been linked to OKC. It's a possibility like SacKingzz said earlier,..
Opens up tons of questions...
What would our plan be at Center?
Is Kanter a piece we would keep or stretch?
What does OKC have to give that would entice u to take Kanter?
Did it fall thru because Presti was trying to fleece Vlade but we didn't go for it?
Did it even fall thru? (Could still be on under the radar...)
Do we move KK for a pick like suspected by many to clear the C logjam?
Is WCS safe?
Can we even sign and trade Rudy after he declined his player option? (if that was officially sent to the league)
Kings rumor at 1:04
My puzzle piece thinking is what if the talks were actually to bring Rudy Gay to OKC in a Sign and Trade with Kanter coming here. The rumors were there that Gay had or would meet with us. He has also been linked to OKC. It's a possibility like SacKingzz said earlier,..
Opens up tons of questions...
What would our plan be at Center?
Is Kanter a piece we would keep or stretch?
What does OKC have to give that would entice u to take Kanter?
Did it fall thru because Presti was trying to fleece Vlade but we didn't go for it?
Did it even fall thru? (Could still be on under the radar...)
Do we move KK for a pick like suspected by many to clear the C logjam?
Is WCS safe?
Can we even sign and trade Rudy after he declined his player option? (if that was officially sent to the league)
Kings rumor at 1:04
MAKE IT MAKE SENSE!
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
jeffjtk1234
- Starter
- Posts: 2,242
- And1: 408
- Joined: Jan 01, 2007
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
No thanks to Kanter
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Re: RE: Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
- City of Trees
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 15,876
- And1: 5,531
- Joined: Dec 23, 2009
- Location: Roseville, CA
-
Re: RE: Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
benchmobbin02 wrote:I just heard David Alridge talking about OKC having talks with us about trading Kanter to us. Didn't say for what or what kind of compensation we'd have asked for. He tied it to OKC looking to make cap room to go after Griffin. Said that it got shot down (I think referring to Blake signing an extension with the Clips.)
My puzzle piece thinking is what if the talks were actually to bring Rudy Gay to OKC in a Sign and Trade with Kanter coming here. The rumors were there that Gay had or would meet with us. He has also been linked to OKC. It's a possibility like SacKingzz said earlier,..
Opens up tons of questions...
What would our plan be at Center?
Is Kanter a piece we would keep or stretch?
What does OKC have to give that would entice u to take Kanter?
Did it fall thru because Presti was trying to fleece Vlade but we didn't go for it?
Did it even fall thru? (Could still be on under the radar...)
Do we move KK for a pick like suspected by many to clear the C logjam?
Is WCS safe?
Can we even sign and trade Rudy after he declined his player option? (if that was officially sent to the league)
Kings rumor at 1:04
Saw on STR the rumor is OKC tried to trade Kanter to us during the draft for #10. Kings declined.
Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
-
madskillz8
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,042
- And1: 1,205
- Joined: Feb 09, 2017
- Location: Dallas
-
Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*
If we are talking about developing a culture and arguing that "character matters", we just cannot go after Kanter.







