Heat trade Roger Mason + cash to Kings for protected second

blind prophet · Post #1 » by **blind prophet** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:23 pm

Sounds like the Heat avoid lux tax, give Kings enough cash to waive Mason + a little extra, Kings offer a pick to Miami they will never receive.

Both organizations make a little cash, both come to an understanding that they will help each other out when they can in the future.

A little brown nose with Riley and co, and some loot, why not?

Anyone have a problem with this?

Should we have helped Miami a little?

Silver Man · Post #2 » by **Silver Man** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:27 pm

Meh.

Every dollar counts.

Post #3 » by **Wolfay** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:02 pm

Doing them a solid for one they have done (keeping Kings in Sac?) or will do do for us. I don't have a problem with it. Building and maintaing good business relations.

SacTown Kings · Post #4 » by **SacTown Kings** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:06 pm

Wait did we send them money or did they send us money? And what's the protection on the second rounder? I didn't even know people put protection on 2nd rounders lol

ADoaN17 · Post #5 » by **ADoaN17** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:10 pm

SacTown Kings wrote:Wait did we send them money or did they send us money? And what's the protection on the second rounder? I didn't even know people put protection on 2nd rounders lol

Heat send money to the Kings so the Kings can waive Mason. PDA just doing a favor for the Heat basically. Kings lose nothing basically.

SacKingZZZ · Post #6 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:18 pm

Looks like the Maloofs may have indeed left that handbook of how to run an NBA team behind. Quit reading it Pete! :lol:

blind prophet · Post #7 » by **blind prophet** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:25 pm

SacKingZZZ wrote:Looks like the Maloofs may have indeed left that handbook of how to run an NBA team behind. Quit reading it Pete!

This is different, we lose nothing, the Maloofs basically sold Orlando Johnson for cash.

And this is also a nod to an owner who helped the Kings stay here.

Post #8 » by **Wolfay** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:26 pm

How is this Maloofian in any way? We didn't give up a damn thing.

SacKingZZZ · Post #9 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:34 pm

C'mon they were the masters of this kind of deal. Marquis Daniels ring any bells? They've taken on junk for cash almost every deadline recently.

jeffjtk1234 · Post #10 » by **jeffjtk1234** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:38 pm

who cares it doesnt hurt us at all.

Some people will look for any reason to complain

SacKingZZZ · Post #11 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:40 pm

Yeah, especially when it comes to irony.

blind prophet · Post #12 » by **blind prophet** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:41 pm

SacKingZZZ wrote:C'mon they were the masters of this kind of deal. Marquis Daniels ring any bells? They've taken on junk for cash almost every deadline recently.

From the wiki of Daniels.

On February 24, 2011, Daniels was traded to the Sacramento Kings along with cash for a protected 2017 second-round draft pick. This trade helped the Celtics reduce their luxury tax and also helped the Kings increase their salary cap to go over the league's minimum. The trade also gave the Celtics a trade exception and a roster spot. He never played any games for the Kings, and became a free agent on July 1, 2011.

:lol:

Yeah forgot about that.

Thanks for keeping the thread honest.

So now it comes down to perception, interesting.

Was it really a favor?

Post #13 » by **Wolfay** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:00 pm

Just fishing for reasons to crap on the new ownership/management. Everything done since last May has been the opposite of Maloof.

blind prophet · Post #14 » by **blind prophet** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:03 pm

Wolfay wrote:Just fishing for reasons to crap on the new ownership/management. Everything done since last May has been the opposite of Maloof.

Why would you assume fishing for reasons to hate on ownership?

If anything this gives an opportunity to look ethical with an open thread about things people may be talking about with discourse.

SacKingZZZ · Post #15 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:21 pm

Wolfay wrote:Just fishing for reasons to crap on the new ownership/management. Everything done since last May has been the opposite of Maloof.

I do find it kind of funny. My statement was clearly made somewhat in jest, but honestly, if the Maloofs were still here and this is what the Kings trade deadline looked like, what do you think this thread would be like right now? Seriously.

Post #16 » by **pillwenney** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:56 pm

With the Terry deal? Hard to say. The FO already made two very un-Maloofish deals earlier this year, so I think we'd all be fine. Not dealing much at the deadline is less relevant when you've already made two trades during the actual season.

This is something the Maloofs would have done, along with every other owner. Not everything they did was terrible and stupid. Criticizing an owner for getting some money for free is of course ridiculous.

The problem with the Maloofs/Petrie regime was doing this and then not spending big, or taking any risks, and instead filling the team up with mid-level contracts.

jeffjtk1234 · Post #17 » by **jeffjtk1234** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:21 pm

SacKingZZZ wrote:
Wolfay wrote:Just fishing for reasons to crap on the new ownership/management. Everything done since last May has been the opposite of Maloof.

I do find it kind of funny. My statement was clearly made somewhat in jest, but honestly, if the Maloofs were still here and this is what the Kings trade deadline looked like, what do you think this thread would be like right now? Seriously.

please tell me what you expected? Teams to take our overpaid Maloof era players for cap space? Draft picks? Sure we moved Thornton but we only saved 1 mil.

The deadline went right about what I thought. No one wanted to pay JT that kind of money. The Landry signing may not even look as bad as it did when it happened as he didnt look half bad in the warriors game. Maybe it does in a season or two, but its too early to tell.

Regardless it's statements like yours that dont make any sense. look at the roster and tell me what you see was possible.

ADoaN17 · Post #18 » by **ADoaN17** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:28 pm

These are the ony deals the Kings could get. No one wants JT or Jimmer...seems like some
of you guys forgot that Kings made two big trades already in Rudy Gay and DWill. Maloofs would of never allowed the team to take on that type of salary.

blind prophet · Post #19 » by **blind prophet** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:41 pm

pillwenney wrote:With the Terry deal? Hard to say. The FO already made two very un-Maloofish deals earlier this year, so I think we'd all be fine. Not dealing much at the deadline is less relevant when you've already made two trades during the actual season.

This is something the Maloofs would have done, along with every other owner. Not everything they did was terrible and stupid. Criticizing an owner for getting some money for free is of course ridiculous.

The problem with the Maloofs/Petrie regime was doing this and then not spending big, or taking any risks, and instead filling the team up with mid-level contracts.

If MT was not part of their future plans, they could not acquire any real asset, and needed some fiscal relief for other cap reasons, I have no issue saving salary and breaking the contract up into two pieces.

And yes I agree that I have no problems with this Miami scenario, to help them who also helped keep the Kings stay in town, build a friendship and trust, and pocket some cash at really zero risk of loss.

blind prophet · Post #20 » by **blind prophet** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:42 pm

ADoaN17 wrote:These are the ony deals the Kings could get. No one wants JT or Jimmer...seems like some
of you guys forgot that Kings made two big trades already in Rudy Gay and DWill. Maloofs would of never allowed the team to take on that type of salary.

One of the reasons I made the thread. I'd prefer to get it all out in the open now.