NBA Trade Thread #11

[Infinity2152]

Rumors swirling around the Kings after really slow start. Assume the coach firing was to appease Fox, but he turned down their super max extension and appears to be viewing the market. If they keep losing, who knows? Saw it on several articles, but here's one discussing it.
https://clutchpoints.com/nba-rumors-deaaron-fox-linked-to-4-teams-by-nba-insider-as-trade-buzz-intensifies

Only Rockets and Spurs have the assets.

Tons of teams have the assets, all a matter of what they're willing to give up and what the Kings would want. De' Aaron Fox with one year left on contract is not a top 10 trade asset in the NBA, particularly if he's forcing a trade. Celtics and Knicks easily have the assets, as does OKC, if not the need. Bulls could get involved as a third team, take a lot of salary to match Fox. It's entirely possible Lavine is the highest-level player they get back in a trade and we KNOW they like Lavine and he's good with going there.

Like if Fox was determined to leave, I could see the Kings considering offer of Giddey/Lavine plus picks for say Fox plus Monk/Huerter to get off the bad contracts. Their lottery pick pg, Devin Carter, is expected to play soon too. Matter of fact, as good as Fox is, I think a lineup of Giddey, Lavine, Derozan, Keegan Murray, Sabonis does better than the 13-18 record they have right now.

[Chi town]

Rumors swirling around the Kings after really slow start. Assume the coach firing was to appease Fox, but he turned down their super max extension and appears to be viewing the market. If they keep losing, who knows? Saw it on several articles, but here's one discussing it.
https://clutchpoints.com/nba-rumors-deaaron-fox-linked-to-4-teams-by-nba-insider-as-trade-buzz-intensifies

Only Rockets and Spurs have the assets.

Tons of teams have the assets, all a matter of what they're willing to give up and what the Kings would want. De' Aaron Fox with one year left on contract is not a top 10 trade asset in the NBA, particularly if he's forcing a trade. Celtics and Knicks easily have the assets, as does OKC, if not the need. Bulls could get involved as a third team, take a lot of salary to match Fox. It's entirely possible Lavine is the highest-level player they get back in a trade and we KNOW they like Lavine and he's good with going there.

Have you seen what Bridges went for?

Fox will get 4 1sts. Not very many teams have that to give.

Maybe Kings would want players. Rockets best for that.

Anyone trading for Fox is trying to win. I like him in SA with Wemby.

[Infinity2152]

Only Rockets and Spurs have the assets.

Tons of teams have the assets, all a matter of what they're willing to give up and what the Kings would want. De' Aaron Fox with one year left on contract is not a top 10 trade asset in the NBA, particularly if he's forcing a trade. Celtics and Knicks easily have the assets, as does OKC, if not the need. Bulls could get involved as a third team, take a lot of salary to match Fox. It's entirely possible Lavine is the highest-level player they get back in a trade and we KNOW they like Lavine and he's good with going there.

Have you seen what Bridges went for?

Fox will get 4 1sts. Not very many teams have that to give.

Maybe Kings would want players. Rockets best for that.

Anyone trading for Fox is trying to win. I like him in SA with Wemby.

Do you really think the Bridges trade set the market value? Players at Bridges level will command 5 firsts? His contract is also stupidly attractive, upping the value. New York massively overpaid because they feel he's the final piece. Fox has one year, then will be seeking super max. Lavine is a good indicator of how much contract matters to trade value. If he had Mikal Bridges contract, he gets 2-3 firsts easily.

With what SA would have to give up to get Fox, best player they could send is Vassell ($29 mill). They send out Vassell, who's left with Wemby and Fox? They're not built to win yet. They don't send Vassell, means the Kings are accepting expensive arguably overpaid players (Harrison Barnes $18 mill, Keldon johnson $19 mill) and prospects/rookies/picks for Fox. Given they would still have Derozan and Sabonis, they probably want a trade where Keldon Johnson, Stephen castle, or Harrison Barnes is not the best incoming player.

It's attractive for SA, only attractive to the Kings if they're willing to accept severe player downgrade for future assets. What would your Spurs offer be that you think the Kings would take for Fox?

[HomoSapien]

The Kings just broke a 16-year playoff drought. They also have 28-year-old Sabonis locked up on a 4 year deal. I wouldn't assume that they'll trade Fox for picks. If they do that, then they're basically forced to sell Sabonis too.

[Dan Z]

The Kings just broke a 16-year playoff drought. They also have 28-year-old Sabonis locked up on a 4 year deal. I wouldn't assume that they'll trade Fox for picks. If they do that, then they're basically forced to sell Sabonis too.

If that happens maybe the Bulls should make an offer for Sabonis?

[2weekswithpay]

The Kings just broke a 16-year playoff drought. They also have 28-year-old Sabonis locked up on a 4 year deal. I wouldn't assume that they'll trade Fox for picks. If they do that, then they're basically forced to sell Sabonis too.

If that happens maybe the Bulls should make an offer for Sabonis?

If the Kings are willing to accept Lonzo + Vuc then it's worth considering. Maybe add pick swap as a sweetener but that's about as far as I'm willing to go. We don't have the personnel to cover for Sabonis' defensive limitations. Playing in a weaker conference will help a bit but we will likely run into the same team-building limitations as the Kings.

[Clint Eastwood]

The Kings just broke a 16-year playoff drought. They also have 28-year-old Sabonis locked up on a 4 year deal. I wouldn't assume that they'll trade Fox for picks. If they do that, then they're basically forced to sell Sabonis too.

If that happens maybe the Bulls should make an offer for Sabonis?

If the Kings are willing to accept Lonzo + Vuc then it's worth considering. Maybe add pick swap as a sweetener but that's about as far as I'm willing to go. We don't have the personnel to cover for Sabonis' defensive limitations. Playing in a weaker conference will help a bit but we will likely run into the same team-building limitations as the Kings.

No chance they consider that. But earlier I proposed If they want to shake it up, this works financially…
Vuc, Lavine and Torrey Craig for Sabonis, Huerter, Lyles.

That might make sense for them as they fully embrace that they will never be a good defensive team anyway, so they become even better on offense. If Im the Bulls, I do this for sure to open up the PT for our guard glut while improving on Vuc longer term. Still adding some reasonable specialist reserves to for better team balance overall.

[2weekswithpay]

Read on Twitter

[sco]

Read on Twitter

I guess LAL is out on Zach and Vuc, but I'm not sure they were ever really in.

[jnrjr79]

Read on Twitter

I guess LAL is out on Zach and Vuc, but I'm not sure they were ever really in.

Not sure they were in, either, but they could swing a Vooch deal easily enough if they wanted. If anything, it’s a tad easier, because they now have more room under the apron. E.g. Rui, Reddish, and a 2nd works.

I think GS makes the most sense for Vooch at this point.

[Dan Z]

Read on Twitter

I guess LAL is out on Zach and Vuc, but I'm not sure they were ever really in.

Not sure they were in, either, but they could swing a Vooch deal easily enough if they wanted. If anything, it’s a tad easier, because they now have more room under the apron. E.g. Rui, Reddish, and a 2nd works.

I think GS makes the most sense for Vooch at this point.

So far it seems like players are being moved for little value. DFS for Russel and picks. Schroder basically for free.

[Infinity2152]

See Washington has Kuzma on the block. His value is down, so he could be a bargain deal. Especially looking at these trades this season. Contract goes down each year, 2 yrs/$40 left after this season. He'll be 30 next year, so older than some would like but I'd trade Williams or Vuc for him. Think Kuzma's a pretty good defender, decent shooter, aggressive scorer. He has that dog in him.

[Dez]

See Washington has Kuzma on the block. His value is down, so he could be a bargain deal. Especially looking at these trades this season. Contract goes down each year, 2 yrs/$40 left after this season. He'll be 30 next year, so older than some would like but I'd trade Williams or Vuc for him. Think Kuzma's a pretty good defender, decent shooter, aggressive scorer. He has that dog in him.

None of what you described is Kuzma and that "dog in him" is an Afghan Hound (the dumbest dog breed).

[Infinity2152]

See Washington has Kuzma on the block. His value is down, so he could be a bargain deal. Especially looking at these trades this season. Contract goes down each year, 2 yrs/$40 left after this season. He'll be 30 next year, so older than some would like but I'd trade Williams or Vuc for him. Think Kuzma's a pretty good defender, decent shooter, aggressive scorer. He has that dog in him.

None of what you described is Kuzma and that "dog in him" is an Afghan Hound (the dumbest dog breed).

Defense took a step back when he went to Washington. Don't know how much of that is because he's on a sorry team. On the Lakers, his defensive ratings were 109, 112, 109, 109 or right around average. Average is like 110. First year with the Wizards, 113 and downhill from there. If you Google Kyle Kuzma and defense, you'll pretty much only see good things. Career average 34% three point shooter, so about average, especially for 6'9 power forwards. He's averaged over 20 pts/gm last two years so he's got something to him. Not saying he's Jaren Jackson, lol. I'd have rather had him the last couple of years than Pat Will, I'll tell you that. And maybe the next two. Sometimes you have to be reasonable in what you expect for the players you're sending out, we're not getting a flawless PF for Pat.

[sco]

See Washington has Kuzma on the block. His value is down, so he could be a bargain deal. Especially looking at these trades this season. Contract goes down each year, 2 yrs/$40 left after this season. He'll be 30 next year, so older than some would like but I'd trade Williams or Vuc for him. Think Kuzma's a pretty good defender, decent shooter, aggressive scorer. He has that dog in him.

None of what you described is Kuzma and that "dog in him" is an Afghan Hound (the dumbest dog breed).

Defense took a step back when he went to Washington. Don't know how much of that is because he's on a sorry team. On the Lakers, his defensive ratings were 109, 112, 109, 109 or right around average. Average is like 110. First year with the Wizards, 113 and downhill from there. If you Google Kyle Kuzma and defense, you'll pretty much only see good things. Career average 34% three point shooter, so about average, especially for 6'9 power forwards. He's averaged over 20 pts/gm last two years so he's got something to him. Not saying he's Jaren Jackson, lol. I'd have rather had him the last couple of years than Pat Will, I'll tell you that. And maybe the next two. Sometimes you have to be reasonable in what you expect for the players you're sending out, we're not getting a flawless PF for Pat.

I think Kuzma has been hurt playing as a 1st/2nd option scorer, where he is probably most effective in that 3rd scorer role. I think you'd see similar inefficiency in Pat if he was asked to do that. Honestly, I'd rather see Pat get the chance to do that here before I shipped him out.

[Infinity2152]

None of what you described is Kuzma and that "dog in him" is an Afghan Hound (the dumbest dog breed).

Defense took a step back when he went to Washington. Don't know how much of that is because he's on a sorry team. On the Lakers, his defensive ratings were 109, 112, 109, 109 or right around average. Average is like 110. First year with the Wizards, 113 and downhill from there. If you Google Kyle Kuzma and defense, you'll pretty much only see good things. Career average 34% three point shooter, so about average, especially for 6'9 power forwards. He's averaged over 20 pts/gm last two years so he's got something to him. Not saying he's Jaren Jackson, lol. I'd have rather had him the last couple of years than Pat Will, I'll tell you that. And maybe the next two. Sometimes you have to be reasonable in what you expect for the players you're sending out, we're not getting a flawless PF for Pat.

I think Kuzma has been hurt playing as a 1st/2nd option scorer, where he is probably most effective in that 3rd scorer role. I think you'd see similar inefficiency in Pat if he was asked to do that. Honestly, I'd rather see Pat get the chance to do that here before I shipped him out.

Pat's had that chance here for 4 years. He's never been the second, not even the third option. I probably defend Pat's potential and contract more than anybody, but like you, I think Kuzma would have been more effective in the same role Pat has been mediocre. Not opposed to keeping Pat at all, could even be good next to Kuzma. Kuzma's a legit 6'9", tired of these undersized SF's playing PF, man! Pat is 6'7, 200, he's Scottie Pippen without the athleticism playing PF.

Kuzma may not be a FEROCIOUS rebounder, but he's had 7 and even 8.5/gm in different seasons. Pat hasn't topped 4.6 rebounds a game and that was his rookie year, his best season. He's actually slightly lower each year except this one:4.6, 4.1, 4.0, 3.9 now 4.4.

[sco]

Defense took a step back when he went to Washington. Don't know how much of that is because he's on a sorry team. On the Lakers, his defensive ratings were 109, 112, 109, 109 or right around average. Average is like 110. First year with the Wizards, 113 and downhill from there. If you Google Kyle Kuzma and defense, you'll pretty much only see good things. Career average 34% three point shooter, so about average, especially for 6'9 power forwards. He's averaged over 20 pts/gm last two years so he's got something to him. Not saying he's Jaren Jackson, lol. I'd have rather had him the last couple of years than Pat Will, I'll tell you that. And maybe the next two. Sometimes you have to be reasonable in what you expect for the players you're sending out, we're not getting a flawless PF for Pat.

I think Kuzma has been hurt playing as a 1st/2nd option scorer, where he is probably most effective in that 3rd scorer role. I think you'd see similar inefficiency in Pat if he was asked to do that. Honestly, I'd rather see Pat get the chance to do that here before I shipped him out.

Pat's had that chance here for 4 years. He's never been the second, not even the third option. I probably defend Pat's potential and contract more than anybody, but like you, I think Kuzma would have been more effective in the same role Pat has been mediocre. Not opposed to keeping Pat at all, could even be good next to Kuzma. Kuzma's a legit 6'9", tired of these undersized SF's playing PF, man! Pat is 6'7, 200, he's Scottie Pippen without the athleticism playing PF.

Kuzma may not be a FEROCIOUS rebounder, but he's had 7 and even 8.5/gm in different seasons. Pat hasn't topped 4.6 rebounds a game and that was his rookie year, his best season. He's actually slightly lower each year except this one:4.6, 4.1, 4.0, 3.9 now 4.4.

I have no problem with a Kuzma deal. I don't think I'd bring him in if we're not keeping Zach though, or we'd be signing up for the WAS version of Kuz.

The next month will be interesting as the FO really needs to decide if they are buyers or sellers at the deadline, pursuing the playoffs or keeping their pick. I expect that the FO wants to be both "a big move away from contention", while at the same time, keeping and building future assets. I think that approach will keep them in their current status for the forseeable future. But I also won't pretend that tanking gives them any more than a 10% chance of nabbing a true #1 option.

[Infinity2152]

I think Kuzma has been hurt playing as a 1st/2nd option scorer, where he is probably most effective in that 3rd scorer role. I think you'd see similar inefficiency in Pat if he was asked to do that. Honestly, I'd rather see Pat get the chance to do that here before I shipped him out.

Pat's had that chance here for 4 years. He's never been the second, not even the third option. I probably defend Pat's potential and contract more than anybody, but like you, I think Kuzma would have been more effective in the same role Pat has been mediocre. Not opposed to keeping Pat at all, could even be good next to Kuzma. Kuzma's a legit 6'9", tired of these undersized SF's playing PF, man! Pat is 6'7, 200, he's Scottie Pippen without the athleticism playing PF.

Kuzma may not be a FEROCIOUS rebounder, but he's had 7 and even 8.5/gm in different seasons. Pat hasn't topped 4.6 rebounds a game and that was his rookie year, his best season. He's actually slightly lower each year except this one:4.6, 4.1, 4.0, 3.9 now 4.4.

I have no problem with a Kuzma deal. I don't think I'd bring him in if we're not keeping Zach though, or we'd be signing up for the WAS version of Kuz.

The next month will be interesting as the FO really needs to decide if they are buyers or sellers at the deadline, pursuing the playoffs or keeping their pick. I expect that the FO wants to be both "a big move away from contention", while at the same time, keeping and building future assets. I think that approach will keep them in their current status for the forseeable future. But I also won't pretend that tanking gives them any more than a 10% chance of nabbing a true #1 option.

Agree. Even with this current team, if the team was healthy, they'd have a pretty stable floor, I think, just not much of a ceiling. Move Vuc for a defensive minded center, re-sign Giddey, Ball is role player healthy next year, Matas is any good, we're probably a big move from contention with a solid floor.

If we see Vuc doesn't get traded or gets traded for say Capela (which I think could happen), they're keeping Zach. and they're still trying to compete now. Vuc trade should tell us a lot.

[Chi town]

Pat's had that chance here for 4 years. He's never been the second, not even the third option. I probably defend Pat's potential and contract more than anybody, but like you, I think Kuzma would have been more effective in the same role Pat has been mediocre. Not opposed to keeping Pat at all, could even be good next to Kuzma. Kuzma's a legit 6'9", tired of these undersized SF's playing PF, man! Pat is 6'7, 200, he's Scottie Pippen without the athleticism playing PF.

Kuzma may not be a FEROCIOUS rebounder, but he's had 7 and even 8.5/gm in different seasons. Pat hasn't topped 4.6 rebounds a game and that was his rookie year, his best season. He's actually slightly lower each year except this one:4.6, 4.1, 4.0, 3.9 now 4.4.

I have no problem with a Kuzma deal. I don't think I'd bring him in if we're not keeping Zach though, or we'd be signing up for the WAS version of Kuz.

The next month will be interesting as the FO really needs to decide if they are buyers or sellers at the deadline, pursuing the playoffs or keeping their pick. I expect that the FO wants to be both "a big move away from contention", while at the same time, keeping and building future assets. I think that approach will keep them in their current status for the forseeable future. But I also won't pretend that tanking gives them any more than a 10% chance of nabbing a true #1 option.

Agree. Even with this current team, of the team was healthy, they'd have a pretty stable floor, I think, just not much of a ceiling. Move Vuc for a defensive minded center, re-sign Giddey, Ball is role player healthy next year, Matas is any good, we're probably a big move from contention with a solid floor.

We swap out Vuc for a defensive C and I think we gain way more than what we lose in his offense.

I think we will resign Zo to a cheap 1+1 deal too.

[sco]

I have no problem with a Kuzma deal. I don't think I'd bring him in if we're not keeping Zach though, or we'd be signing up for the WAS version of Kuz.

The next month will be interesting as the FO really needs to decide if they are buyers or sellers at the deadline, pursuing the playoffs or keeping their pick. I expect that the FO wants to be both "a big move away from contention", while at the same time, keeping and building future assets. I think that approach will keep them in their current status for the forseeable future. But I also won't pretend that tanking gives them any more than a 10% chance of nabbing a true #1 option.

Agree. Even with this current team, of the team was healthy, they'd have a pretty stable floor, I think, just not much of a ceiling. Move Vuc for a defensive minded center, re-sign Giddey, Ball is role player healthy next year, Matas is any good, we're probably a big move from contention with a solid floor.

We swap out Vuc for a defensive C and I think we gain way more than what we lose in his offense.

I think we will resign Zo to a cheap 1+1 deal too.

One reason I want to trade Vuc is that I've been super impressed by Smith's play and would want to give him a good look at starting gig before I gave up any assets for a different guy. Dude has shown me 2-way talent. I really just wonder if his size will impact his durability.

And I totally agree on Ball. If he can show leg durability through the end of the season, I'd be all over signing him.