Kings/Bulls

louc1970 · Post #1 » by **louc1970** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 12:02 am

Heard rumors of Bulls/Kings.

Bulls trade LaVine
Kings trade Huerter/Barnes/13

Kings get that scorer to pair with Sabontis/Fox. A rookie is not going to get time.

Bulls get another pick and players to move. Full rebuild in play.

Post #2 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 12:08 am

IF you heard the rumors you probably heard that the Kings were asking incentive to swap those players for LaVine. So I can't imagine they change their mind and instead of getting an asset give up a valuable one.

LaVine has negative value--at least that's been what's consistently reported with Chicago shopping him hard and every team rumored to have any interest asking for assets back.

Post #3 » by **pillwenney** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 12:08 am

I really hope this doesn't happen. Bulls should be incentivizing the Kings--not vice-versa. Even still, it's a lower run option for me.

OxAndFox · Post #4 » by **OxAndFox** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 12:09 am

louc1970 wrote:Heard rumors of Bulls/Kings.

Bulls trade LaVine
Kings trade Huerter/Barnes/13

Kings get that scorer to pair with Sabontis/Fox. A rookie is not going to get time.

Bulls get another pick and players to move. Full rebuild in play.

The max the Kings would do is Huerter/Barnes. The Bulls aren't getting a lottery pick for that contract.

SNPA · Post #5 » by **SNPA** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 12:25 am

Monk signed. There is zero reason for LaVine.

louc1970 · Post #6 » by **louc1970** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 12:44 am

Texas Chuck wrote:IF you heard the rumors you probably heard that the Kings were asking incentive to swap those players for LaVine. So I can't imagine they change their mind and instead of getting an asset give up a valuable one.

LaVine has negative value--at least that's been what's consistently reported with Chicago shopping him hard and every team rumored to have any interest asking for assets back.

I did not hear all of the details but it was from No Ceilings pod cast.

Post #7 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 12:53 am

SNPA wrote:Monk signed. There is zero reason for LaVine.

Meh. a 3rd guard should never be the reason you don't pursue upgrading your starters.

Mind you, I think the Kings should look elsewhere, but Monk shouldn't be a deciding point at all.

OxAndFox · Post #8 » by **OxAndFox** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:05 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
SNPA wrote:Monk signed. There is zero reason for LaVine.

Meh. a 3rd guard should never be the reason you don't pursue upgrading your starters.

Mind you, I think the Kings should look elsewhere, but Monk shouldn't be a deciding point at all.

The buzz was the Kings were trying to make it Lavine/Caruso. Not sure on what the specifics would have been, but it just shows that the Kings aren't afraid of adding more guards.
I would have to think they're keeping Fox/Monk/Keon and that's all that is "safe".

LightTheBeam · Post #9 » by **LightTheBeam** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:14 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
SNPA wrote:Monk signed. There is zero reason for LaVine.

Meh. a 3rd guard should never be the reason you don't pursue upgrading your starters.

Mind you, I think the Kings should look elsewhere, but Monk shouldn't be a deciding point at all.

Can you really tie up 100+ million into 3 score 1st guards? Seems like a bad idea. I agree it's not necessarily Monk in a vacuum, but with him back the roster construction doesn't allow for a LaVine.

JeffFosters · Post #10 » by **JeffFosters** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:03 am

SNPA wrote:Monk signed. There is zero reason for LaVine.

Teams usually have more than one 2 guard, and Lavine is still an excellent basketball player. The Kings are better with him and Monk.

pipfan · Post #11 » by **pipfan** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:55 am

I think you could play Monk and Lavine together a bit, and Monk is a 6th man. Lavine is an upgrade
Ayo/CWhite/JCarter
CWhite/Hueter
Giddy/Terry/PWill
PWill/Barnes/Phillips
Drummond/Vuc (save $, resign Drummond and start him, so Vuc can bumslay off the bench).

That's a 30 win team, and we keep our pick while letting the young kids develop (#11 also in the rotation somewhere)

daoneandonly · Post #12 » by **daoneandonly** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 11:19 am

pillwenney wrote:I really hope this doesn't happen. Bulls should be incentivizing the Kings--not vice-versa. Even still, it's a lower run option for me.

This. Lavine does not have positive value. He plays zero D and is often out. Its really crazy to me to see some of the latest proposals for him. Especially ones where Dal includes a first in any deal for him.

The Beam King · Post #13 » by **The Beam King** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 11:32 am

My thoughts are the Kings pile up Huerter, Vezenkov, Duarter and Davion Mitchell.

The bulls then move Lavine with #10, and add a couple of 2nds as well to get of that contract.

Kings are risking LaVine gets healthy. Add cheap parts via the draft.
Bulls move an albatross contract into smaller more usable pieces.

ChettheJet · Post #14 » by **ChettheJet** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:58 pm

I see no SAC problem starting Fox and Lavine while Monk plays next to both of them. There are 96 guard minutes so there are some for a 4th guy, the hot hand on a given night plays more.

The Bulls are happy to take the original offer which has been rumored for some time, heck people still think the Kings like Lavine because their previous regime made him an offer as a RFA. People aren't too bright if they think the team logo retains long term memory. If you want the Bulls to help a team take a 2 time all star who has averaged 27 ppg when healthy, then drop out of the bidding.

Barnes likely is the backup 4, Huerter would be the designated shooter off the bench either could be moved at the deadline depending on how things go. The #13 pick in this draft could be a guy mentioned at #6 or #18 and either could be right or wrong.

LightTheBeam · Post #15 » by **LightTheBeam** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 3:16 pm

Is it an unreasonable counter to say. Bases on reports kings want to be compensated to take Lavine, so does every team in the league.

Lavine + #11 for Barnes, Huerter, Sasha, Davion, #45

I still don't love it for Sac, but at least we get two cracks in the draft. Can offer Toppin the MLE.

Fox - LaVine - Keegan - Toppin - Sabonis
Monk - Keon - Lyles - #11 - #13

The Beam King · Post #16 » by **The Beam King** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 3:57 pm

LightTheBeam wrote:Is it an unreasonable counter to say. Bases on reports kings want to be compensated to take Lavine, so does every team in the league.

Lavine + #11 for Barnes, Huerter, Sasha, Davion, #45

I still don't love it for Sac, but at least we get two cracks in the draft. Can offer Toppin the MLE.

Fox - LaVine - Keegan - Toppin - Sabonis
Monk - Keon - Lyles - #11 - #13

I would keep Barnes. You can make the deal with Huerter, Vezenkov, Duarte and Mitchell.

No reason to put ourselves off at thr knees with Barnes as he could help facilitate a trade for a John Collins or Jerami Grant.

LightTheBeam · Post #17 » by **LightTheBeam** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:52 pm

Beam Me Up Foxy wrote:
LightTheBeam wrote:Is it an unreasonable counter to say. Bases on reports kings want to be compensated to take Lavine, so does every team in the league.

Lavine + #11 for Barnes, Huerter, Sasha, Davion, #45

I still don't love it for Sac, but at least we get two cracks in the draft. Can offer Toppin the MLE.

Fox - LaVine - Keegan - Toppin - Sabonis
Monk - Keon - Lyles - #11 - #13

I would keep Barnes. You can make the deal with Huerter, Vezenkov, Duarte and Mitchell.

No reason to put ourselves off at thr knees with Barnes as he could help facilitate a trade for a John Collins or Jerami Grant.

If the Kings are willing to go well into the tax it's possible without Barnes and with Duarte. I'm assuming a little financial relief this year would be important so they dodge the tax as in the future they will be a repeat offender.

SNPA · Post #18 » by **SNPA** » Tue Jun 25, 2024 11:37 pm

jarryd3107 wrote:
SNPA wrote:Monk signed. There is zero reason for LaVine.

Teams usually have more than one 2 guard, and Lavine is still an excellent basketball player. The Kings are better with him and Monk.

Per dollar Ellis is vastly better.

Kings need a PF and length, that’s where the focus should be. A another playmaker would be fantastic…after length.

hugepatsfan · Post #19 » by **hugepatsfan** » Wed Jun 26, 2024 12:12 am

It makes sense that teams want incentive to take Lavine's contract, but that doesn't mean it makes sense for CHI to oblige. If it costs meaningful asset(s) to move him, then CHI should just hold onto him.

OGSactownballer · Post #20 » by **OGSactownballer** » Wed Jun 26, 2024 12:37 am

hugepatsfan wrote:It makes sense that teams want incentive to take Lavine's contract, but that doesn't mean it makes sense for CHI to oblige. If it costs meaningful asset(s) to move him, then CHI should just hold onto him.

Yeah. That makes perfect sense.

Keep Levine @$47million/year avg for three more years.

Watch DeRozan walk or overpay him too in his backside thirties.

Have a pissed off Levine who plays when he feels like it.

Stall the development of your young players and destroy their trade value til they walk.

Wallow in mediocrity and cap hell for several more years desperately trying to be a play in team.

Yeah that makes perfect sense vs sell cheap on a mistake and let him be someone else’s problem and break that contract into shorter smaller and mineable pieces. Yes it will cost you some to move but for a rebuild you want to suck anyway.