What can Cleveland give for Ron Artest?

[deNIEd]

Look at Seattle last year with cap space and the Kurt Thomas situation, of them netting a total of 4 picks for simply moving a guy around.

But look at the long term savings, say we save 15 million next year, thats 15 million more we could possibly use towards the lux tax when our team is in contending status.

but would you rather have the Odom deal? Because at this point, Artest will be gone. I would rather see us clear some cap space, as well as send Artest east instead of giving the Lakers a title.

Ideally, a deal netting us Julian Wright or simliar player would be best, but next best thing

[rpa]

but who would you say is a second tier young PG in this league? The guy might not be the best, but he is solid.

1st tier = franchise PG: Paul, Deron, Arenas
2nd tier = allstar caliber PGs: Parker, Billups, Nash, Baron
3rd tier = solid starters: Calderon, Devin Harris, Hinrich, TJ Ford, Kidd
4th tier = close to solid but a little below: Bibby, Andre Miller, Felton

The younger guys aren't on there yet because they're hard to place. No Rondo, no Conley, no Rose. However, all 3 of those guys are probably 4th tier or better. There are a few more guys that I debated putting in the 4th tier (like Mo Williams, Rafer, & Udrih) but just couldn't. If Udrih plays like he did last year he can move up to 4th tier. If he plays better than last year he could be 3rd tier.

Artest's value is just not sufficient enough to bring in a top flight young starting guy.

You don't have to bring in a guy starting right now. You get a 1st rounder and Petrie has the chance to turn it into a solid starter. The guy grabbed up Martin & Gerald Wallace with late 1sts.

The best we can get with Artest is two to three solid prospects who can play a productive role in the league. Really, this just has to do with the difference between our perceptions on the values of the players involved in the deal.

My theory is that you have to take risks at some point. However, those risks need to be calculated and you need to look at the rewards of both sides. An example of a BAD risk is taking a near certain bust with a lottery pick (like a DeAndre Jordan) just because there's a 1% chance he turns into a star. A good risk is the situation we're talking about now where you're likely to get roughly the same caliber of player out of the 1st round as you are from the 2 vets (West & Bob) but you also have a shot at getting a player who's significantly better than those 2. That is, the downside to taking a deal centered around a pick, as opposed to 2 bench players, is very small. But the reward could be big. The downside to drafting a player like Jordan is that you pass up not only on stars and decent guys but you also waste an entire year of development (that is, you now have a hole in your rebuilding scheme)

Artest for West, Varejo and 1st round pick

Is that fair?

It's better, though I'm still not a fan of either of those guys.

[rpa]

Look at Seattle last year with cap space and the Kurt Thomas situation, of them netting a total of 4 picks for simply moving a guy around.

But look at the long term savings, say we save 15 million next year, thats 15 million more we could possibly use towards the lux tax when our team is in contending status.

but would you rather have the Odom deal? Because at this point, Artest will be gone. I would rather see us clear some cap space, as well as send Artest east instead of giving the Lakers a title.

Ideally, a deal netting us Julian Wright or simliar player would be best, but next best thing

The reason most people are so enthralled with that Seattle deal is that nobody had ever seen something like that happen. It wasn't a once in a generation kind of thing (I'd guess) but you can't plan for something like that. And given the free agent market being crappy that is exactly what you'd be planning on by taking back expiring contracts.

I also don't think the Maloofs will look at it like that. Remember, they didn't want to go into the luxury tax when we WERE contending; they're just not the types of owners that'll open their pocket books regardless of what happens. They'll spend up to the tax but that's more of an upper limit than anything.

[KM44]

When I was talking about the tiers, I was saying YOUNG PG's. Young. This means that they are about under 27ish and they still have room to improve greatly.

First Tier: Paul, Deron
Second Tier: Harris, Felton, Ford
Third Tier: West, Rondo, Udrih

That is about where I would rank the young PG's of the NBA. (I didn't go up and down every roster, so don't kill me if I missed a guy or two). As for the worth of Artest, we can get right around the Second tier or third coupled with a little somthing else. IMO

[deNIEd]

The reason most people are so enthralled with that Seattle deal is that nobody had ever seen something like that happen. It wasn't a once in a generation kind of thing (I'd guess) but you can't plan for something like that. And given the free agent market being crappy that is exactly what you'd be planning on by taking back expiring contracts.

I also don't think the Maloofs will look at it like that. Remember, they didn't want to go into the luxury tax when we WERE contending; they're just not the types of owners that'll open their pocket books regardless of what happens. They'll spend up to the tax but that's more of an upper limit than anything.

I haven't read all that you previously wrote, so I probably don't know the extent of the debate (but I know that I typically agree with your stances)

I think a first is a must for whatever team we trade Artest to, Petrie has shown time after time, that he can find a wingplayer in almost any situation. Peja->Hedo->Wallace->Martin->Garcia. Give him any pick 15-25 range, and I'm positive he'll be able to find the best wing player available.

I don't think we should use Cleveland to unload all of our players, since Miller and Moore still have value, and we will most likely optimize our total value by trading them separately from Artest. (I think Moore can net a late 1st or 2nd, going to a contending team, like Kurt Thomas).

However, ultimately, I think with recent events, our "contending" phase is over as well as waiting for the "best" deal. I would much rather trade Artest for 60% of his value, than wait till the deadline with him being unhappy and risking getting more value then.

But, in terms of expirings, I would much rather have Clevlands expirings over Lakers. So, if it ultimately came down to, Odom or Wally, I would take Wally.

[KF10]

Well, it is not like the Lakers deal is better or anything. Odom is better than Wally but Wally/Odom has nearly the same expiring contract. If we look at that perspective. But the Cavs deal, will include most likely AV and or West. Heck, I rather do that than the Lakers deal.

Why do you assume that the Odom deal is the best deal out there? It doesn't make any sense for the Kings (which is why it makes no sense that that's the best deal). If the rumored Lakers deal were some garbage like "Walton + Ariza + future 2nd for Artest" would you also use the "it's better than the Lakers deal" excuse?

No.

I just don't want to deal with the Lakers period. I'm just saying that if the Lakers are offering us Odom for Artest and a dump of Thomas. Why we can't we do a similar deal with the Cavs? Like a Wally + AV + West variation? This deal sends Artest in the East instead in our division.

I don't assume that Odom is the best deal out there but it is known that the Lakers ARE offering us that. So, it is not really a rumor. Either way, there are like 6/7 teams (probably contenders) are interested in him. So, I deal with them before the Lakers. But if the other teams are offering crap deals to us, might as well consider a Laker deal or just let Artest walk. It doesn't matter. We are no rush in trading Artest anyways.

[Sacramento_King]

The reason most people are so enthralled with that Seattle deal is that nobody had ever seen something like that happen. It wasn't a once in a generation kind of thing (I'd guess) but you can't plan for something like that. And given the free agent market being crappy that is exactly what you'd be planning on by taking back expiring contracts.

The Wolves did it with the Sixers getting Carney and a 1st for a 2nd rd pick this year.

I also don't think the Maloofs will look at it like that. Remember, they didn't want to go into the luxury tax when we WERE contending; they're just not the types of owners that'll open their pocket books regardless of what happens. They'll spend up to the tax but that's more of an upper limit than anything.

Which contradicts your argument that the Maloofs arent in it to make money which you made earlier. If they can save 15 mill next year moving dead weight like KT and Reef than I think they do it. With the space they get, they get more flexibility to make moves. It's a no brainer actually.

[rpa]

Which contradicts your argument that the Maloofs arent in it to make money which you made earlier. If they can save 15 mill next year moving dead weight like KT and Reef than I think they do it. With the space they get, they get more flexibility to make moves. It's a no brainer actually.

How does not wanting to go into the luxury tax contradict not wanting to make money? More like they don't want to lose millions of dollars.

Consider that the Maloofs are stopping at the luxury tax, a very specific point. Not $5mil under the luxury tax, not at the salary cap itself, but specifically at the luxury tax. Consider that not only would they incur a dollar for dollar tax when they hit that number but they'd also lose out on the pool of distributed funds that is the NBA's version of Robin Hood (take from the rich, give to the poor).

If the Maloofs were truly concerned with MAKING money they'd have had Petrie trim the payroll much more. The very fact that we signed Mikki Moore last year should be explanation enough that the Maloofs are not overly concerned with money. However, there is a limit to their generosity and that limit is the luxury tax.

[rpa]

I haven't read all that you previously wrote, so I probably don't know the extent of the debate (but I know that I typically agree with your stances)

My point from the get-go has been that expiring contracts should be the last things the Kings "ask" for in any Artest trade. As a matter of fact, if I were them I'd even consider taking on a little salary (if it got us a better prospect or more pieces) so long as that salary was gone by the summer of 2010.

To me, the only reason to be under the cap is to sign free agents. The trades that teams luck into like the Kurt Thomas to Seattle trade that netted them 2 1st rounders just aren't realistic to COUNT on. That is, you have no control over those situations so you're basically getting under the cap and then hoping for the best. That opposed to having cap room specifically for free agents where you are in more control of your own destiny; you can go after the free agents, make them offers, etc.

Since the 2009 offseason doesn't look too attractive from the perspective of the Kings (the only guy they'd really be interested in IMO would be Boozer, the rest of the crop is pretty bad given the Kings positions OR they're guys coming off a rookie contract who aren't that great but will have to be overpaid in a big way) it doesn't make sense to make expiring contracts a priority.

What makes sense is to try and compile as many longterm assets as possible. By longterm assets I mean: picks & young guys (specifically ones on rookie contracts but others could do as well). Picks will allow Petrie to work his usual magic at the draft OR can be used to move up (in the draft) or snare players in trades that would be of use to us; young guys would serve the same purpose.

[rpa]

double post

[deNIEd]

I haven't read all that you previously wrote, so I probably don't know the extent of the debate (but I know that I typically agree with your stances)

My point from the get-go has been that expiring contracts should be the last things the Kings "ask" for in any Artest trade. As a matter of fact, if I were them I'd even consider taking on a little salary (if it got us a better prospect or more pieces) so long as that salary was gone by the summer of 2010.

To me, the only reason to be under the cap is to sign free agents. The trades that teams luck into like the Kurt Thomas to Seattle trade that netted them 2 1st rounders just aren't realistic to COUNT on. That is, you have no control over those situations so you're basically getting under the cap and then hoping for the best. That opposed to having cap room specifically for free agents where you are in more control of your own destiny; you can go after the free agents, make them offers, etc.

Since the 2009 offseason doesn't look too attractive from the perspective of the Kings (the only guy they'd really be interested in IMO would be Boozer, the rest of the crop is pretty bad given the Kings positions OR they're guys coming off a rookie contract who aren't that great but will have to be overpaid in a big way) it doesn't make sense to make expiring contracts a priority.

What makes sense is to try and compile as many longterm assets as possible. By longterm assets I mean: picks & young guys (specifically ones on rookie contracts but others could do as well). Picks will allow Petrie to work his usual magic at the draft OR can be used to move up (in the draft) or snare players in trades that would be of use to us; young guys would serve the same purpose.

Well, I don't think anyone is disagree with this?

I think the point is more, if Lamar is the only offer on the table, than taking Wally Z is a lot better than Odom (expiring, to east, etc.)

But, in the end, Artest will be gone by summer, personally, I'd look for

1) Kinda proven prospects (Thornton, Wright, Young, etc) <- Hardest
2) Picks
3) Expirings

Ultimately, we can't really hold on Artest much longer, since its apparent he wants to be gone now and is really hurt by the whole situation (whoevers' fault it is, or even if there is a fault).

But, Wally>Odom in terms of a deal

[Sacramento_King]

Which contradicts your argument that the Maloofs arent in it to make money which you made earlier. If they can save 15 mill next year moving dead weight like KT and Reef than I think they do it. With the space they get, they get more flexibility to make moves. It's a no brainer actually.

How does not wanting to go into the luxury tax contradict not wanting to make money? More like they don't want to lose millions of dollars.

Consider that the Maloofs are stopping at the luxury tax, a very specific point. Not $5mil under the luxury tax, not at the salary cap itself, but specifically at the luxury tax. Consider that not only would they incur a dollar for dollar tax when they hit that number but they'd also lose out on the pool of distributed funds that is the NBA's version of Robin Hood (take from the rich, give to the poor).

If the Maloofs were truly concerned with MAKING money they'd have had Petrie trim the payroll much more. The very fact that we signed Mikki Moore last year should be explanation enough that the Maloofs are not overly concerned with money. However, there is a limit to their generosity and that limit is the luxury tax.

BS. Why did we trade Bibby then? Because they are concerned with money. He was traded simply for financial reasons. If you truly believe that the luxury tax threshold is their break even point than you are being naive or are ignorant. The Kings had a championship contending roster and they didnt want to go into the tax. Why? Simply money. I cant say 100% but I can assume that they would make a profit if they went into the tax or not. Trimming fifteen million dollars of their roster one year early should be something they would be excited about in my opinion.

You say the Sonics deal was a one time thing but the Wolves just made a similar deal. Next year, Miami, Atlanta, possibly Detroit and possibly Cleveland could be in a position to move a ending contract, young players and picks to clear space to go after a free agent. Wouldnt you like the cap space to help facilitate that deal?

[sackings916]

Cleveland can offer a much better package than LA IMO. First off, we wouldn't be giving LA the last piece to the championship. The Cavs can offer expirings along with Varejao, who isn't a starter but is still a big man who played big, unlike any big men the Kings have right now. He rebounds, he's long, he hustles...kind of like a Scot Pollard back on the old Kings teams. Cleveland fans seem to be willing to trade their 09 1st. I just dont see any reason the Kings would deal with LA over Cleveland. And Mike Brown and LeBron have to be pushing the FO for Artest.

[rpa]

BS. Why did we trade Bibby then? Because they are concerned with money. He was traded simply for financial reasons.

They traded Bibby because had we not we wouldn't have been able to extend Udrih without going into the luxury tax. Don't believe me? The Kings are about $2mil (or less) under the tax level currently. Add in the [roughly] $10mil that we saved on Bibby's contract (Bibby's salary->Shelden's salary) and you put the Kings well into the tax.

As a matter of fact. The difference between Bibby/Shelden salaries is greater than Udrih's salary. Which means that, low and behold, had the Kings kept Bibby and NOT extended Udrih they would have still been in the luxury tax.

So let me put this as simply as I can: keeping Bibby meant paying the luxury tax.

If you truly believe that the luxury tax threshold is their break even point than you are being naive or are ignorant.

Yeah, I must have completely imagined the Kings trading away Brian Skinner for garbage ONLY to get under the luxury tax level last (06-07) season.

The Kings had a championship contending roster and they didnt want to go into the tax. Why? Simply money.

Uhm not exactly.

First off, one reason the Kings were able to keep that roster together were some crazy bargains:
1) Peja at a mere $6-7mil a year
2) JWill (and then Bibby for a year) on a rookie deal.
3) Christie on a moderate but not huge deal
4) Bobby Jackson on an absolutely AWESOME deal. In his final year with the Kings Jackson was making just over $3mil

Further, since we're talking about the luxury tax here, every season up until the 02-03 season can't be included in the argument as the tax never came into effect until that season. Those were the seasons where the Kings were "clearly" contending and thus it's hard to make a call on either.

Needless to say the Kings paid the tax in 02-03 (not sure about 03-04 or 04-05 because the old CBA had a threshold for the tax to come into play whereas the new CBA has the luxury tax coming into play regardless of the BRI & players salaries).

I cant say 100% but I can assume that they would make a profit if they went into the tax or not.

Not necessarily:

http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/luxurytax1.pdf

"Thus, in total the fourteen highest spending teams saw their operating income fall from about $122 million in 2001-2002 to a projected operating loss of about $80 million in 2002-2003"

Also if you look at the table at the end I believe (I'm horrible at reading economic tables and I don't know the lingo) it shows the Kings with an operating LOSS for the season they were in the tax.

You say the Sonics deal was a one time thing but the Wolves just made a similar deal.

So we have 2 in the span of how many years. Read my point about this to denied. You can't get under the cap and COUNT on things like that to happen; it's just not realistic--especially when you have to take into account that the Kings have no control over the outcome.

Next year, Miami, Atlanta, possibly Detroit and possibly Cleveland could be in a position to move a ending contract, young players and picks to clear space to go after a free agent. Wouldnt you like the cap space to help facilitate that deal?

Atlanta's going to be well under the cap regardless. Same goes for Miami. Detroit & Cleveland could but that really isn't the point.

Here's the point:

It seems that you are trying to go after expiring contracts for Artest (as well as Thomas/Shareef), etc. If you trade Artest with 1 of those guys (or both, in some cases), the best you're going to get are expiring contracts. No picks, no young players.

Now, you think we should do this because there's a chance that one of the teams that will be NEAR the cap may trade a 1 year deal to the Kings, along with a draft pick or young guy, so that they can clear space for a free agent.


But, wait a minute, the Kings could trade Artest by himself and get a pick (and possibly a young guy as well). So, what's the point of taking a CHANCE that we can get a pick/young guy for the cap space when we can just keep the crappy contracts and get guaranteed picks?

[Smills91]

If a Ron deal goes through and the two options are:

Ron/K9 for Odom

vs

Ron/k9 for Marion

I take the Marion deal 10 times out of 10. Why? It puts Ron out East and screws the Lakers, besides Marion will probably have more trade value at the deadline anyways if something were to come up.

[chriswebb86]

Right now I like the idea of moving Ron to the Cavs for something like AV, Wally, West, and 1st. THat might be a little too much, but something I would look into. I also liek the idea of Ron/k9 for Marion.

[deNIEd]

Of the three deals in this thread,

Artest/KT for Odom
Artest/KT for Marion
Artest/KT for AV, Wally, 1st

I'd take the Cavs deal without question. That 1st will help us more than any of the other players, Petrie with a 2nd first able to draft any swing player he wants? it'd be christmas for him

[KM44]

The cavs would include West as well. That is the best deal out there. (we would have to add moore to the equation in the cavs deal for salary reasons). It is simply the best deal and the best situation.

[SacKingZZZ]

Yeah, the Cavs deal might be best, but that 1st is going to be worthless being so low. AV could be the next Scot Pollard for us, West could be the next Bo-Jax. Adding Moore sounds good to me. Brad? No way. Brad should be moved on his own if he is moved at all.

Actual on court play, style wise, etc. the best fit still remains Odom hands down.

[rpa]

Yeah, the Cavs deal might be best, but that 1st is going to be worthless being so low. AV could be the next Scot Pollard for us, West could be the next Bo-Jax. Adding Moore sounds good to me. Brad? No way. Brad should be moved on his own if he is moved at all.

Actual on court play, style wise, etc. the best fit still remains Odom hands down.

Yeah, it's not like Petrie drafted guys like Kevin Martin or Gerald Wallace with late 1st rounders

errr uhm, oh wait.

What's even funnier is you calling a late 1st worthless but then raving about 2 guys who were picked @ 24th overall (West) & 31st overall (Bob).