ImageImageImageImageImage

Kings Trade Thread

Moderators: codydaze, KF10, City of Trees

RipPizzaGuy
General Manager
Posts: 9,968
And1: 5,986
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
     

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#881 » by RipPizzaGuy » Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:11 pm

City of Trees wrote:
SmellingColors wrote:
RipPizzaGuy wrote:
We will see if this happens. I could see Bjelica/Barnes going out to a team wanting to win now. I could also see Monte having the sense to rebuild Hields value before he does anything.

Hield needs to be used as Klay. If he dribbles more than once per possession bench him. I want him coming around screens, curls, spotting up for wide open 3s. He could easily work himself to a positive player like he was a year ago. Just needs to actually give effort on defense.


I've cooled on the idea of trading Buddy unless we can find a guy that is young and can get better because Buddy's ability to shoot is almost underrated by Kings fans now because of how Luke used him. He's not a pg and shouldn't be treated like one. I think that's on Luke, not Buddy. We need other playmakers to fill that role.
McNair is going to analytically explain to Buddy "hey, you're 99% less effective when you over dribble trying to be a playmaker" but Buddy won't want to hear that. Buddy just wants to ball.

Yes Buddy's shooting is eite but he doesn't have those "winning habits".

IMO if Buddy doesn't "develop winning habits" he's gone.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app


Totally agree. And this was my biggest issue with Walton this year. And also the reason I think the Kings getting a legit backup ball handler is probably the single biggest priority for the team.

When Fox goes out, the entire offense goes to crap. Joseph conned the team out of 30 million. I hated it the day it was signed. Hes not an awful "player" but you can't win with a guy like that as your backup ball handler. Hes slow, hes not good at finding guys, and he can't shoot. And because we don't have a reliable guy to handle when Fox goes out, Buddy was forced into that role. Ill agree Hield was reluctant to give it up, but we shouldn't even place him in that position.

And I love what you said. I would be force feeding buddy that line. 60pts 11 dribbles.

Id tell him I want you taking twice the amount of shots as dribbles. Shoot 15 3's a game, average 25ppg. Just STOP dribbling.
SmellingColors
Senior
Posts: 599
And1: 94
Joined: Dec 14, 2010

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#882 » by SmellingColors » Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:10 pm

I think the Kings keep Buddy and sign-and-trade Bogi. Idk how many offers you can field for that, but going back to that Lonzo deal I think it's worth looking at. I know he doesn't drive, fades offensively, and all that, but his 3pt shot has improved (he shot about the same as Bogi last year on 1 attempt less per game), he moves the ball, works well in the open court, and he plays defense. Having him as a pg off the bench and playing minutes with Buddy and Fox I think would work. He's also going to be cheaper than Bogi and his contract is guaranteed next year with a qualifying offer the following so it fits with McNair's idea of flexibility too.

Either way, I'm leaning towards a sign and trade of Bogi for whatever we can and keeping Buddy.
RipPizzaGuy
General Manager
Posts: 9,968
And1: 5,986
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
     

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#883 » by RipPizzaGuy » Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:36 am

Dipo and Turner want out? 2 guys I've wanted the kings to go after. I wouldn't bother posting this on the trade board but I think the kings could be in play here. Bjelica and Holmes don't get enough respect in Sacramento, they were both really good this season and teams make note of that.

Bjelica, Holmes, Buddy, #12 for Dipo and Turner.

Monte makes his splash.

Fox, dipo, Bogdan, bagley, turner as the starting 5 would be fun as hell to watch. It hurts our shooting at the 2, but improves it up front. Turner projects as a good compliment to Bagley. This trade improves the offense as well.

I also think while the names aren't as attractive, this makes Indiana better as well.

Sent from my SM-G988U1 using RealGM mobile app
kb02
Pro Prospect
Posts: 758
And1: 397
Joined: Jun 06, 2017
 

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#884 » by kb02 » Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:27 pm

RipPizzaGuy wrote:Dipo and Turner want out? 2 guys I've wanted the kings to go after. I wouldn't bother posting this on the trade board but I think the kings could be in play here. Bjelica and Holmes don't get enough respect in Sacramento, they were both really good this season and teams make note of that.

Bjelica, Holmes, Buddy, #12 for Dipo and Turner.

Monte makes his splash.

Fox, dipo, Bogdan, bagley, turner as the starting 5 would be fun as hell to watch. It hurts our shooting at the 2, but improves it up front. Turner projects as a good compliment to Bagley. This trade improves the offense as well.

I also think while the names aren't as attractive, this makes Indiana better as well.

Sent from my SM-G988U1 using RealGM mobile app


Don't think that would work for Indy. If they're punting Dipo and Turner, they're going into a full reset. Buddy, Bjelly, and Holmes turns them into a treadmill team in the East. Plus Bjelly and Holmes have a year left on their contracts, so they would only get two true long term assets in #12 and Buddy. #12 would be seen as a meh pick in a flat draft and Buddy is Buddy.

As for the Kings, I hope the Kings avoid this type of trade. Vlade tried to do this three times during his 5 year tenure--jump start a winning culture by trading for and signing vets. He did this with the Philly trade, the Hill/Carter/Zbo signings, and last year's Joseph/Dedmon disasters.

IMO, the Kings need to do what Memphis is doing. Let your young horses run, build their own culture, build up or destroy their value, keep the legit ones, then take on vets as complimentary or final (like Jimmy Butler in Miami) pieces.
RipPizzaGuy
General Manager
Posts: 9,968
And1: 5,986
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
     

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#885 » by RipPizzaGuy » Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:44 pm

kb02 wrote:
RipPizzaGuy wrote:Dipo and Turner want out? 2 guys I've wanted the kings to go after. I wouldn't bother posting this on the trade board but I think the kings could be in play here. Bjelica and Holmes don't get enough respect in Sacramento, they were both really good this season and teams make note of that.

Bjelica, Holmes, Buddy, #12 for Dipo and Turner.

Monte makes his splash.

Fox, dipo, Bogdan, bagley, turner as the starting 5 would be fun as hell to watch. It hurts our shooting at the 2, but improves it up front. Turner projects as a good compliment to Bagley. This trade improves the offense as well.

I also think while the names aren't as attractive, this makes Indiana better as well.

Sent from my SM-G988U1 using RealGM mobile app


Don't think that would work for Indy. If they're punting Dipo and Turner, they're going into a full reset. Buddy, Bjelly, and Holmes turns them into a treadmill team in the East. Plus Bjelly and Holmes have a year left on their contracts, so they would only get two true long term assets in #12 and Buddy. #12 would be seen as a meh pick in a flat draft and Buddy is Buddy.

As for the Kings, I hope the Kings avoid this type of trade. Vlade tried to do this three times during his 5 year tenure--jump start a winning culture by trading for and signing vets. He did this with the Philly trade, the Hill/Carter/Zbo signings, and last year's Joseph/Dedmon disasters.

IMO, the Kings need to do what Memphis is doing. Let your young horses run, build their own culture, build up or destroy their value, keep the legit ones, then take on vets as complimentary or final (like Jimmy Butler in Miami) pieces.


I mean, Dipo right now doesn't have a ton of value. And Indiana isn't really a tanking type team. Losing Dipo/Turner doesn't send them to rebuild status. They still have Brogdan, Warren, Sabonis as well as some core role players. I actually think it makes them a better team long term. Brogdon showed during the playoffs (although the team didn't) that hes got another level. Sabonis is better than Turner and they really hurt missing him in the playoffs.

I'm all for slow playing it, but when you have the chance to add a guy like Turner you can't compare that to the guys you mentioned. Hes 24 years old, defends the paint, and shoots 3s. He is not comparable to guys like Hill, Carter, Zbo, or Joseph and Dedmon. This is a build for the future as much as it is for today. Hes the perfect fit on paper for Bagley and Fox, and 1 of the only guys who meets that criteria.
User avatar
City of Trees
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 13,580
And1: 3,580
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#886 » by City of Trees » Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:50 pm

Buddy/12 for Randle/8


Randle is a large expiring who could have some untapped potential (unlikely). Kings can move up to grab my guy Haliburton

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app
kalenclayton
Analyst
Posts: 3,252
And1: 942
Joined: Feb 13, 2014
   

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#887 » by kalenclayton » Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:54 pm

City of Trees wrote:Buddy/12 for Randle/8


Randle is a large expiring who could have some untapped potential (unlikely). Kings can move up to grab my guy Haliburton

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app

I’d honestly just stand pat if that’s the haul we get. I think Buddy is fine and we can do well with him. Do I think he’s on the next winning Kings team? I really don’t know, but I feel like we could do better. I like Buddy+Nesmith/Bey/Maxey/Poku over Randle(inevitable cap space)+Haliburton. I think there’s a better trade out there for us.
User avatar
City of Trees
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 13,580
And1: 3,580
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#888 » by City of Trees » Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:09 pm

kalenclayton wrote:
City of Trees wrote:Buddy/12 for Randle/8


Randle is a large expiring who could have some untapped potential (unlikely). Kings can move up to grab my guy Haliburton

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app

I’d honestly just stand pat if that’s the haul we get. I think Buddy is fine and we can do well with him. Do I think he’s on the next winning Kings team? I really don’t know, but I feel like we could do better. I like Buddy+Nesmith/Bey/Maxey/Poku over Randle(inevitable cap space)+Haliburton. I think there’s a better trade out there for us.
I know a better deal more than likely exists but at the end of the day I'm comfortable taking on an expiring and moving up.

Nesmith is growing on me but Haliburton is the best player listed in your post. I choose BPA and cap space all day long.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app
KF10
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 24,693
And1: 4,963
Joined: Jul 28, 2006
 

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#889 » by KF10 » Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:11 pm

City of Trees wrote:Buddy/12 for Randle/8


Randle is a large expiring who could have some untapped potential (unlikely). Kings can move up to grab my guy Haliburton

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app


Buddy's contract:

Code: Select all

20-21: $24,431,818   
21-22: $22,477,273   
22-23: $20,522,727   
23-24: $18,568,182

TOTAL: $86,000,000 (+ $20,000,000 in bonuses) = up to $106,000,000


Randle's contract:

Code: Select all

20-21: $18,900,000   
21-22: $19,800,000

*21-22 is partially guaranteed for $4M.

TOTAL: $38,700,000 or $22,900,000 (if Randle gets waived before 21-22 season)


This is an easy choice.

We rid ourselves of the long-term commitment with Buddy and his bloated (bonus-filled) contract. And we get to move UP in the draft from #12 to #8?

Sign me up.
SmellingColors
Senior
Posts: 599
And1: 94
Joined: Dec 14, 2010

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#890 » by SmellingColors » Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:58 pm

RipPizzaGuy wrote:
kb02 wrote:
RipPizzaGuy wrote:Dipo and Turner want out? 2 guys I've wanted the kings to go after. I wouldn't bother posting this on the trade board but I think the kings could be in play here. Bjelica and Holmes don't get enough respect in Sacramento, they were both really good this season and teams make note of that.

Bjelica, Holmes, Buddy, #12 for Dipo and Turner.

Monte makes his splash.

Fox, dipo, Bogdan, bagley, turner as the starting 5 would be fun as hell to watch. It hurts our shooting at the 2, but improves it up front. Turner projects as a good compliment to Bagley. This trade improves the offense as well.

I also think while the names aren't as attractive, this makes Indiana better as well.

Sent from my SM-G988U1 using RealGM mobile app


Don't think that would work for Indy. If they're punting Dipo and Turner, they're going into a full reset. Buddy, Bjelly, and Holmes turns them into a treadmill team in the East. Plus Bjelly and Holmes have a year left on their contracts, so they would only get two true long term assets in #12 and Buddy. #12 would be seen as a meh pick in a flat draft and Buddy is Buddy.

As for the Kings, I hope the Kings avoid this type of trade. Vlade tried to do this three times during his 5 year tenure--jump start a winning culture by trading for and signing vets. He did this with the Philly trade, the Hill/Carter/Zbo signings, and last year's Joseph/Dedmon disasters.

IMO, the Kings need to do what Memphis is doing. Let your young horses run, build their own culture, build up or destroy their value, keep the legit ones, then take on vets as complimentary or final (like Jimmy Butler in Miami) pieces.


I mean, Dipo right now doesn't have a ton of value. And Indiana isn't really a tanking type team. Losing Dipo/Turner doesn't send them to rebuild status. They still have Brogdan, Warren, Sabonis as well as some core role players. I actually think it makes them a better team long term. Brogdon showed during the playoffs (although the team didn't) that hes got another level. Sabonis is better than Turner and they really hurt missing him in the playoffs.

I'm all for slow playing it, but when you have the chance to add a guy like Turner you can't compare that to the guys you mentioned. Hes 24 years old, defends the paint, and shoots 3s. He is not comparable to guys like Hill, Carter, Zbo, or Joseph and Dedmon. This is a build for the future as much as it is for today. Hes the perfect fit on paper for Bagley and Fox, and 1 of the only guys who meets that criteria.


I think Indy would take a Dipo trade for Hayward if that's an offer over anything the Kings would offer. If Turner isn't involved in that though, I'd easily take a modified trade of the one you mentioned for Turner.
SmellingColors
Senior
Posts: 599
And1: 94
Joined: Dec 14, 2010

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#891 » by SmellingColors » Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:23 pm

KF10 wrote:
City of Trees wrote:Buddy/12 for Randle/8


Randle is a large expiring who could have some untapped potential (unlikely). Kings can move up to grab my guy Haliburton

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app


Buddy's contract:

Code: Select all

20-21: $24,431,818   
21-22: $22,477,273   
22-23: $20,522,727   
23-24: $18,568,182

TOTAL: $86,000,000 (+ $20,000,000 in bonuses) = up to $106,000,000


Randle's contract:

Code: Select all

20-21: $18,900,000   
21-22: $19,800,000

*21-22 is partially guaranteed for $4M.

TOTAL: $38,700,000 or $22,900,000 (if Randle gets waived before 21-22 season)


This is an easy choice.

We rid ourselves of the long-term commitment with Buddy and his bloated (bonus-filled) contract. And we get to move UP in the draft from #12 to #8?

Sign me up.


My question is what are we getting out of his contract for? I think Buddy is much more than a long-term bloated contract and his contract will only get better with time. I think he still has real value as a trade asset.

I guess for me it's a matter of 1) is Haliburton a better prospect than Buddy + #12? And/or 2) is Haliburton better than other trade targets + #12?

Maybe someone can fill me in on what I'm missing, but I see a borderline starter or solid off the bench player in Haliburton who's greatest strengths are team defense, catch-and-shoot 3's, high bbiq, and passing. I mean, in some ways, his best attributes seem like a less athletic, smaller, but better shooting version of Lonzo Ball. Am I missing something?
KF10
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 24,693
And1: 4,963
Joined: Jul 28, 2006
 

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#892 » by KF10 » Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:38 pm

SmellingColors wrote:
My question is what are we getting out of his contract for? I think Buddy is much more than a long-term bloated contract and his contract will only get better with time. I think he still has real value as a trade asset.

I guess for me it's a matter of 1) is Haliburton a better prospect than Buddy + #12? And/or 2) is Haliburton better than other trade targets + #12?

Maybe someone can fill me in on what I'm missing, but I see a borderline starter or solid off the bench player in Haliburton who's greatest strengths are team defense, catch-and-shoot 3's, high bbiq, and passing. I mean, in some ways, his best attributes seem like a less athletic, smaller, but better shooting version of Lonzo Ball. Am I missing something?


The Kings are a BAD team. They SHOULDN'T have contracts like Buddy and Barnes on roster. They are both 28 and will be 32/33 by the time their contracts are up.

The goal is always cap flexibility and accumulate as much cost-effective assets for a team like the Kings. The Kings are no where near a winning team. Buddy and Barnes will only make the Kings treadmill and pigeonhole them out of many trade moves and worse lottery positions.

A potential savings of a WHOPPING $84,000,000 for the next 4 years and a better lotto pick? That is an easy no-brainer.

How is this hard to understand?
SmellingColors
Senior
Posts: 599
And1: 94
Joined: Dec 14, 2010

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#893 » by SmellingColors » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:11 pm

KF10 wrote:
SmellingColors wrote:
My question is what are we getting out of his contract for? I think Buddy is much more than a long-term bloated contract and his contract will only get better with time. I think he still has real value as a trade asset.

I guess for me it's a matter of 1) is Haliburton a better prospect than Buddy + #12? And/or 2) is Haliburton better than other trade targets + #12?

Maybe someone can fill me in on what I'm missing, but I see a borderline starter or solid off the bench player in Haliburton who's greatest strengths are team defense, catch-and-shoot 3's, high bbiq, and passing. I mean, in some ways, his best attributes seem like a less athletic, smaller, but better shooting version of Lonzo Ball. Am I missing something?


The Kings are a BAD team. They SHOULDN'T have contracts like Buddy and Barnes on roster. They are both 28 and will be 32/33 by the time their contracts are up.

The goal is always cap flexibility and accumulate as much cost-effective assets for a team like the Kings. The Kings are no where near a winning team. Buddy and Barnes will only make the Kings treadmill and pigeonhole them out of many trade moves and worse lottery positions.

A potential savings of a WHOPPING $84,000,000 for the next 4 years and a better lotto pick? That is an easy no-brainer.

How is this hard to understand?


Lol okay. I'm not talking about whether they should or shouldn't have contracts that size...they do. We have to start with the situation as it is, not as we think it should be. I just think the Kings need to squeeze as much out of their trade assets as they can and I'm simply asking is this the best we can get for Buddy? Is Haliburton worth moving up for instead of shopping Buddy to other teams and taking who we would get at 12?

Maybe I'm overrating Buddy's value or underrating Haliburton's (hence my genuine question about what I'm missing). But if we're moving him and 12 for Haliburton and an expiring, I think the two questions I outlined above are valid.

It's funny you mentioned Barnes because I was about to add that I think his contract is far more onerous and important to move because I don't think he has any trade value and is more like dead weight. I just don't see the Buddy and Barnes contracts as the same.
RipPizzaGuy
General Manager
Posts: 9,968
And1: 5,986
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
     

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#894 » by RipPizzaGuy » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:47 pm

SmellingColors wrote:
RipPizzaGuy wrote:
kb02 wrote:
Don't think that would work for Indy. If they're punting Dipo and Turner, they're going into a full reset. Buddy, Bjelly, and Holmes turns them into a treadmill team in the East. Plus Bjelly and Holmes have a year left on their contracts, so they would only get two true long term assets in #12 and Buddy. #12 would be seen as a meh pick in a flat draft and Buddy is Buddy.

As for the Kings, I hope the Kings avoid this type of trade. Vlade tried to do this three times during his 5 year tenure--jump start a winning culture by trading for and signing vets. He did this with the Philly trade, the Hill/Carter/Zbo signings, and last year's Joseph/Dedmon disasters.

IMO, the Kings need to do what Memphis is doing. Let your young horses run, build their own culture, build up or destroy their value, keep the legit ones, then take on vets as complimentary or final (like Jimmy Butler in Miami) pieces.


I mean, Dipo right now doesn't have a ton of value. And Indiana isn't really a tanking type team. Losing Dipo/Turner doesn't send them to rebuild status. They still have Brogdan, Warren, Sabonis as well as some core role players. I actually think it makes them a better team long term. Brogdon showed during the playoffs (although the team didn't) that hes got another level. Sabonis is better than Turner and they really hurt missing him in the playoffs.

I'm all for slow playing it, but when you have the chance to add a guy like Turner you can't compare that to the guys you mentioned. Hes 24 years old, defends the paint, and shoots 3s. He is not comparable to guys like Hill, Carter, Zbo, or Joseph and Dedmon. This is a build for the future as much as it is for today. Hes the perfect fit on paper for Bagley and Fox, and 1 of the only guys who meets that criteria.


I think Indy would take a Dipo trade for Hayward if that's an offer over anything the Kings would offer. If Turner isn't involved in that though, I'd easily take a modified trade of the one you mentioned for Turner.


I understand this board is really low on Hield right now, I get it. He played like trash this year.

I still think he may hold some values to teams looking for that type of player. Hes an elite shooter who needs to be put in the right place. Unfortunately we have no playmakers aside from Fox, and Hield doesn't fit for that reason.

A team like Indiana who can run the offense through Malcolm, Warren, or Sabonis, and isn't a huge free agent draw, may hold some value for a knockdown 3pt shooter like Hield and even Bjelica.
User avatar
City of Trees
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 13,580
And1: 3,580
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#895 » by City of Trees » Wed Sep 30, 2020 12:55 am

SmellingColors wrote:
KF10 wrote:
SmellingColors wrote:
My question is what are we getting out of his contract for? I think Buddy is much more than a long-term bloated contract and his contract will only get better with time. I think he still has real value as a trade asset.

I guess for me it's a matter of 1) is Haliburton a better prospect than Buddy + #12? And/or 2) is Haliburton better than other trade targets + #12?

Maybe someone can fill me in on what I'm missing, but I see a borderline starter or solid off the bench player in Haliburton who's greatest strengths are team defense, catch-and-shoot 3's, high bbiq, and passing. I mean, in some ways, his best attributes seem like a less athletic, smaller, but better shooting version of Lonzo Ball. Am I missing something?


The Kings are a BAD team. They SHOULDN'T have contracts like Buddy and Barnes on roster. They are both 28 and will be 32/33 by the time their contracts are up.

The goal is always cap flexibility and accumulate as much cost-effective assets for a team like the Kings. The Kings are no where near a winning team. Buddy and Barnes will only make the Kings treadmill and pigeonhole them out of many trade moves and worse lottery positions.

A potential savings of a WHOPPING $84,000,000 for the next 4 years and a better lotto pick? That is an easy no-brainer.

How is this hard to understand?


Lol okay. I'm not talking about whether they should or shouldn't have contracts that size...they do. We have to start with the situation as it is, not as we think it should be. I just think the Kings need to squeeze as much out of their trade assets as they can and I'm simply asking is this the best we can get for Buddy? Is Haliburton worth moving up for instead of shopping Buddy to other teams and taking who we would get at 12?

Maybe I'm overrating Buddy's value or underrating Haliburton's (hence my genuine question about what I'm missing). But if we're moving him and 12 for Haliburton and an expiring, I think the two questions I outlined above are valid.

It's funny you mentioned Barnes because I was about to add that I think his contract is far more onerous and important to move because I don't think he has any trade value and is more like dead weight. I just don't see the Buddy and Barnes contracts as the same.
Haliburton could be off the board at 8 so maybe focusing on him was wrong by me.

The foundation of the trade is A) getting out of Buddy's deal, and B) Buddy's value helps you move up to take BPA at 8.

Randle/cap space will give McNair flexibility to maneuver other trades rebuilding teams SHOULD make.

I'm just saying it's a good move. May not be the best move but I'd be happy.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app
RipPizzaGuy
General Manager
Posts: 9,968
And1: 5,986
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
     

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#896 » by RipPizzaGuy » Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:14 pm

City of Trees wrote:
SmellingColors wrote:
KF10 wrote:
The Kings are a BAD team. They SHOULDN'T have contracts like Buddy and Barnes on roster. They are both 28 and will be 32/33 by the time their contracts are up.

The goal is always cap flexibility and accumulate as much cost-effective assets for a team like the Kings. The Kings are no where near a winning team. Buddy and Barnes will only make the Kings treadmill and pigeonhole them out of many trade moves and worse lottery positions.

A potential savings of a WHOPPING $84,000,000 for the next 4 years and a better lotto pick? That is an easy no-brainer.

How is this hard to understand?


Lol okay. I'm not talking about whether they should or shouldn't have contracts that size...they do. We have to start with the situation as it is, not as we think it should be. I just think the Kings need to squeeze as much out of their trade assets as they can and I'm simply asking is this the best we can get for Buddy? Is Haliburton worth moving up for instead of shopping Buddy to other teams and taking who we would get at 12?

Maybe I'm overrating Buddy's value or underrating Haliburton's (hence my genuine question about what I'm missing). But if we're moving him and 12 for Haliburton and an expiring, I think the two questions I outlined above are valid.

It's funny you mentioned Barnes because I was about to add that I think his contract is far more onerous and important to move because I don't think he has any trade value and is more like dead weight. I just don't see the Buddy and Barnes contracts as the same.
Haliburton could be off the board at 8 so maybe focusing on him was wrong by me.

The foundation of the trade is A) getting out of Buddy's deal, and B) Buddy's value helps you move up to take BPA at 8.

Randle/cap space will give McNair flexibility to maneuver other trades rebuilding teams SHOULD make.

I'm just saying it's a good move. May not be the best move but I'd be happy.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app


Are we really sure the Kings are going into full tear down mode? I just don't see it tbh. I think Monte who learned from Morey is going to try and keep us competitive while building. We may see a string of moves, but I think Monte will try to find someone who needs Bjelica (Milwaukee, Utah, Boston), someone who needs Barnes (every team needs more wings), and someone who can actually use Buddys shooting.

Some NY fans have said they would do #8/cap space for #12/Buddy. I'm all for that, but taking on Randle might be a bit much as I don't see anyway to rebuild his value like with Buddy. I also don't think hes a good guy to have around Bagley. Selfish player which are habits we are already trying to get Bagley to break.

I actually think Barnes will have a market. Big wings, who play decent defense and can shoot the 3 are always in demand. I've long suggested something with Boston where we get Hayward/picks. This is what I expect. A win now player, with a build towards the future.

Guess we will see in the coming months.
BoogieTime
Analyst
Posts: 3,108
And1: 1,140
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
 

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#897 » by BoogieTime » Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:15 pm

RipPizzaGuy wrote:
City of Trees wrote:
SmellingColors wrote:
Lol okay. I'm not talking about whether they should or shouldn't have contracts that size...they do. We have to start with the situation as it is, not as we think it should be. I just think the Kings need to squeeze as much out of their trade assets as they can and I'm simply asking is this the best we can get for Buddy? Is Haliburton worth moving up for instead of shopping Buddy to other teams and taking who we would get at 12?

Maybe I'm overrating Buddy's value or underrating Haliburton's (hence my genuine question about what I'm missing). But if we're moving him and 12 for Haliburton and an expiring, I think the two questions I outlined above are valid.

It's funny you mentioned Barnes because I was about to add that I think his contract is far more onerous and important to move because I don't think he has any trade value and is more like dead weight. I just don't see the Buddy and Barnes contracts as the same.
Haliburton could be off the board at 8 so maybe focusing on him was wrong by me.

The foundation of the trade is A) getting out of Buddy's deal, and B) Buddy's value helps you move up to take BPA at 8.

Randle/cap space will give McNair flexibility to maneuver other trades rebuilding teams SHOULD make.

I'm just saying it's a good move. May not be the best move but I'd be happy.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app


Are we really sure the Kings are going into full tear down mode? I just don't see it tbh. I think Monte who learned from Morey is going to try and keep us competitive while building. We may see a string of moves, but I think Monte will try to find someone who needs Bjelica (Milwaukee, Utah, Boston), someone who needs Barnes (every team needs more wings), and someone who can actually use Buddys shooting.

Some NY fans have said they would do #8/cap space for #12/Buddy. I'm all for that, but taking on Randle might be a bit much as I don't see anyway to rebuild his value like with Buddy. I also don't think hes a good guy to have around Bagley. Selfish player which are habits we are already trying to get Bagley to break.

I actually think Barnes will have a market. Big wings, who play decent defense and can shoot the 3 are always in demand. I've long suggested something with Boston where we get Hayward/picks. This is what I expect. A win now player, with a build towards the future.

Guess we will see in the coming months.


You don’t see it because you may be personally averse to it.

What’s the point treadmilling?
RipPizzaGuy
General Manager
Posts: 9,968
And1: 5,986
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
     

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#898 » by RipPizzaGuy » Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:05 pm

BoogieTime wrote:
RipPizzaGuy wrote:
City of Trees wrote:Haliburton could be off the board at 8 so maybe focusing on him was wrong by me.

The foundation of the trade is A) getting out of Buddy's deal, and B) Buddy's value helps you move up to take BPA at 8.

Randle/cap space will give McNair flexibility to maneuver other trades rebuilding teams SHOULD make.

I'm just saying it's a good move. May not be the best move but I'd be happy.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using RealGM mobile app


Are we really sure the Kings are going into full tear down mode? I just don't see it tbh. I think Monte who learned from Morey is going to try and keep us competitive while building. We may see a string of moves, but I think Monte will try to find someone who needs Bjelica (Milwaukee, Utah, Boston), someone who needs Barnes (every team needs more wings), and someone who can actually use Buddys shooting.

Some NY fans have said they would do #8/cap space for #12/Buddy. I'm all for that, but taking on Randle might be a bit much as I don't see anyway to rebuild his value like with Buddy. I also don't think hes a good guy to have around Bagley. Selfish player which are habits we are already trying to get Bagley to break.

I actually think Barnes will have a market. Big wings, who play decent defense and can shoot the 3 are always in demand. I've long suggested something with Boston where we get Hayward/picks. This is what I expect. A win now player, with a build towards the future.

Guess we will see in the coming months.


You don’t see it because you may be personally averse to it.

What’s the point treadmilling?


That's not really true. I have no problem shipping off Barnes and Hield for cap space, and then moving Bjelica and Holmes for some value. Not really tied to anyone on this team but Fox.

None of us really know Monte, but coming from the school of Morey.. Bottoming out was never a Morey thing. I honestly don't think it should be a Sac thing either. Our team stinks of losing, tanking doesn't fix that. Making the playoffs and building off your core guys do. Right now we should be striving to be the Pacers, Jazz, or Rockets. I get most Kings fans are Championship or bust mentality, but right now we need to rid the stink of the last 15 years.

Either way, i'm on board with in Monte we trust right now. Whichever way he decides to go (as long as he doesn't get taken advantage of) ill wait a year or 2 before judging.
BoogieTime
Analyst
Posts: 3,108
And1: 1,140
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
 

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#899 » by BoogieTime » Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:39 pm

RipPizzaGuy wrote:
BoogieTime wrote:
RipPizzaGuy wrote:
Are we really sure the Kings are going into full tear down mode? I just don't see it tbh. I think Monte who learned from Morey is going to try and keep us competitive while building. We may see a string of moves, but I think Monte will try to find someone who needs Bjelica (Milwaukee, Utah, Boston), someone who needs Barnes (every team needs more wings), and someone who can actually use Buddys shooting.

Some NY fans have said they would do #8/cap space for #12/Buddy. I'm all for that, but taking on Randle might be a bit much as I don't see anyway to rebuild his value like with Buddy. I also don't think hes a good guy to have around Bagley. Selfish player which are habits we are already trying to get Bagley to break.

I actually think Barnes will have a market. Big wings, who play decent defense and can shoot the 3 are always in demand. I've long suggested something with Boston where we get Hayward/picks. This is what I expect. A win now player, with a build towards the future.

Guess we will see in the coming months.


You don’t see it because you may be personally averse to it.

What’s the point treadmilling?


That's not really true. I have no problem shipping off Barnes and Hield for cap space, and then moving Bjelica and Holmes for some value. Not really tied to anyone on this team but Fox.

None of us really know Monte, but coming from the school of Morey.. Bottoming out was never a Morey thing. I honestly don't think it should be a Sac thing either. Our team stinks of losing, tanking doesn't fix that. Making the playoffs and building off your core guys do. Right now we should be striving to be the Pacers, Jazz, or Rockets. I get most Kings fans are Championship or bust mentality, but right now we need to rid the stink of the last 15 years.

Either way, i'm on board with in Monte we trust right now. Whichever way he decides to go (as long as he doesn't get taken advantage of) ill wait a year or 2 before judging.


I think it was not a Morey thing out of circumstance. He was able to transition from TMac/Yao to Harden. If a franchise player became available im sure McNair would pursue

I don’t personally agree with having random vets help us to the 10th pick instead of the 4th in the coming years if the rebuild is on. IMO that hurts more long term than not having any possible culture change

The Kings just laid off more personnel today, team is bleeding financially which could further lead to a rebuild though
RipPizzaGuy
General Manager
Posts: 9,968
And1: 5,986
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
     

Re: Kings Trade Thread 

Post#900 » by RipPizzaGuy » Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:39 pm

BoogieTime wrote:
RipPizzaGuy wrote:
BoogieTime wrote:
You don’t see it because you may be personally averse to it.

What’s the point treadmilling?


That's not really true. I have no problem shipping off Barnes and Hield for cap space, and then moving Bjelica and Holmes for some value. Not really tied to anyone on this team but Fox.

None of us really know Monte, but coming from the school of Morey.. Bottoming out was never a Morey thing. I honestly don't think it should be a Sac thing either. Our team stinks of losing, tanking doesn't fix that. Making the playoffs and building off your core guys do. Right now we should be striving to be the Pacers, Jazz, or Rockets. I get most Kings fans are Championship or bust mentality, but right now we need to rid the stink of the last 15 years.

Either way, i'm on board with in Monte we trust right now. Whichever way he decides to go (as long as he doesn't get taken advantage of) ill wait a year or 2 before judging.


I think it was not a Morey thing out of circumstance. He was able to transition from TMac/Yao to Harden. If a franchise player became available im sure McNair would pursue

I don’t personally agree with having random vets help us to the 10th pick instead of the 4th in the coming years if the rebuild is on. IMO that hurts more long term than not having any possible culture change

The Kings just laid off more personnel today, team is bleeding financially which could further lead to a rebuild though


In 2010 the Rockets won 43 games with Hayes/Scola/Battier/Martin/Lowry.
2011 2 games over .500 with no stars at all.
2012 is when they made the play for Harden and jumped up to 45 wins.

Harden wasn't always Harden though. I think Monte may look at that route, and try to find the next dump of a guy like Brogdan. Or how Indiana did the same thing by instead of moving George to tank, grabbing 2 guys with untapped potential.

I'm far more interested in trying to get some young guys with untapped (or slightly tapped) potential like Divincenzo, LeVert, White, Thybulle, than I am fire selling the entire team for a bunch of draft picks. The method has proven to be largely unsuccessful with some outliers. It will lead Sac to 5 more years of awful play, and further cementing our 20 years as the Browns of the NBA.

Like I said, i'm not tied to any player individually. I also have no faith in the draft lottery talent or that even if we sell we would be worse than teams like Charlotte, Cleveland, NY, Pistons, Bulls, Wolves, Hawks, etc... Basically the same teams who have been bad for awhile.

Like I said, i'm all on board the Toronto, Miami, Indiana, and Houston route. WE can make moves that help us win now, and improve us in the future. The stink has got to go.

Return to Sacramento Kings