Kings - Grizzlies (Grizz rebuild, Kings rebound)

eitanr · Post #21 » by **eitanr** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:37 pm

I really like the original deal for Sacto. I think such a deal should be done on draft day. Then if Memphis gets a top 3 pick and can get a big man they can use Martin and he to build around.

As for Sacto, they could draft several ways. With a core 6 of Gasol, Miller, Artest, Salmons, Garcia, and Bibby....a 3rd big could be nice (if Moore is in the deal) as could a backup PG/ PG for the future....or even another wing. I think this would put Sacramento back into the playoffs and possibly contention if they ae healthy.

Post #22 » by **loserX** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:39 pm

Bac2Basics wrote:I saw both Kenny & Cardinal, but I stand by what I said, the Kings shouldn't take back a bad contract if their dealing Kevin Martin.

They're getting a better one than the one they send out. Why should the Griz get a bad contract if they're trading Gasol? You're swapping star for star, bad deal for marginally better deal, and complaining?

If you expect to get Gasol for Martin, and get rid of KT without taking bad contracts back, I'm afraid that's a little bit delusional.

shakeandbake · Post #23 » by **shakeandbake** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:47 pm

I don't think it works for Memphis simply because they need help in the defensive/rebounding areas. Martin is a really good young player, but in trading Gasol for Martin, the Grizz become even weaker in the area that they struggle the most. That is the main reason you see so many scenarios with Chicago...they have young players at positions of need.

Bac2Basics · Post #24 » by **Bac2Basics** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:02 pm

loserX wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
They're getting a better one than the one they send out. Why should the Griz get a bad contract if they're trading Gasol? You're swapping star for star, bad deal for marginally better deal, and complaining?
If you expect to get Gasol for Martin, and get rid of KT without taking bad contracts back, I'm afraid that's a little bit delusional.

I'm not saying that I expect to get Gasol for Martin & KT and not get a bad contract back.

Gasol isn't my first choice for anyone we'd trade Martin for, not that I'm sure who would be.

What I'm saying is regardless of who the Kings trade Martin for, I can't see them getting a bad contract in the return package.

Post #25 » by **loserX** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:15 pm

Bac2Basics wrote:What I'm saying is regardless of who the Kings trade Martin for, I can't see them getting a bad contract in the return package.

*sigh* But you're sending out a WORSE contract too. Why does that not matter? I see it this way:

A) You're essentially trading Martin for Gasol, which IMHO is pretty good for the Kings.
B) Then you're trading Kenny for Cardinal, which I assume is necessary to make the money in part A work. And you're getting the better of it.

So you're saying you'll give up on part A because for some reason you won't do part B?

deNIEd · Post #26 » by **deNIEd** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:52 pm

This is stupid for the Kings.

Bibby/Salmons/Artest/Gasol/Miller has about a 2-3 year window of winning, before Bibby and Miller gets way too old.
And even this lineup, still cannot beat the Spurs in a 7 game matchup.

Best option for the kings is rebuilding.

Cruel_Ruin · Post #27 » by **Cruel_Ruin** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:52 pm

I'd be split on a Gasol for Martin deal. I'd probably end up doing it though, because Bibby/Salmons/Artest/Gasol/Miller with Beno/Garcia/Williams/Hawes off the bench sounds really good.

RTM · Post #28 » by **RTM** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:45 pm

Both teams consider this, and I think ultimately, agree on it.

Well done.

sackings916 · Post #29 » by **sackings916** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:18 pm

Bac2Basics wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I'm not saying that I expect to get Gasol for Martin & KT and not get a bad contract back.

Gasol isn't my first choice for anyone we'd trade Martin for, not that I'm sure who would be.

What I'm saying is regardless of who the Kings trade Martin for, I can't see them getting a bad contract in the return package.

I dont understand how you can say that. Regardless of who the Kings trade Martin for they wont take a bad contract back? So if the Kings could get Lebron or Dwight Howard you couldnt see them taking the trade if they had to take on a Hughes type contract?

Smills91 · Post #30 » by **Smills91** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:50 am

shakeandbake wrote:I don't think it works for Memphis simply because they need help in the defensive/rebounding areas. Martin is a really good young player, but in trading Gasol for Martin, the Grizz become even weaker in the area that they struggle the most. That is the main reason you see so many scenarios with Chicago...they have young players at positions of need.

Care to elaborate on this? Andres Nocioni? SF? I understand the frontcourt needs and that's why I have Moore and Kenny going to memphis as temporary fixtures..but how is Chicago's pieces superior to a someone who could probably be Chicago's GO TO guy if he were on their roster in Kevin Martin.

Post #31 » by **VintaGe36** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:43 am

To be honest, any team that trades for Kevin Martin really shouldn't put him as their no. 1 option.

Smills91 · Post #32 » by **Smills91** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:00 am

VintaGe36 wrote:To be honest, any team that trades for Kevin Martin really shouldn't put him as their no. 1 option.

Funny, I can think of maybe 7-8 teams that could or should do that...the rest of the league...well, he'd be their number one scorer.

Post #33 » by **VintaGe36** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:37 am

Really?

Maybe because they lack a TRUE No. 1 option, but Kevin Martin strikes me much more like a 2nd or even REALLY good 3rd STAR to me.

bullzman23 · Post #34 » by **bullzman23** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:46 am

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, so I apologize if it has...but Kevin Martin is a better player than Pau Gasol.

OGSactownballer · Post #35 » by **OGSactownballer** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:19 am

Sorry smills but I have to rip this one up.

Memphis STINKS right now and Gasol is their primary guy as the 4 (they are running Drko at the 5 now when they start). why would you think that giving up our up and coming 25ppg 2 guard and one of the fastest players at his - or any - position in the league would help us? Gasol is not Webber. He is a good - but not great - PF in a center's body and speed. He is also a crappy defender against 4's because he gives up foot speed. I don't think that he is a bad player, but if you add him to our lineup, you essentially create a worse rebounding problem than we already have. memphis is desperate for size/rebounding/post "d" right now. Funny, so are we. So how would adding Gasol and giving up a guy who is our highest percentage outside shooter AND gets to the LINE 12 times a game going to help us? If we had an in and out wing 3 it would be OK, but Ron needs to operate in the post on offense and so does Gasol - so what do you do then? John Salmons is more of a driver and set shooter than a true jump shooter from more than about fifteen feet so now you're closing down the lane even more. Add to this that you're talking about giving up basically three of our four athletic young 2/3 player in this (Kevin/Francisco/Quyincy) and we become a plodder team that can't run with the Suns/Hornets/Warriors in the West. Forget about San Antonio.

At first and on the surface this sounds real good, but when you really dissect what would happen on the floor after a move like this it just doesn't work well at all (unless you're talking about moving Bibby after this for a top two guard - which makes no sense whn we already have Martin).

Everybody is really high on John right now because he's pulling starter minutes at the two and putting up great numbers. But the fact is that he is going to be much more effective getting nearly as many minutes as the sixth man and it will be better for the team with that kind of firepower coming off the bench. Kevin may not start right away, but he IS the starter (and would be on most teams in the league), and that is how it should be. I am not going to get into the argument about which scoring option he should be (i.e. 1/2/3), just that he should always be one of the first two options on every play because of his efficiency and ability to get to the line.

I think that unless we can get ahold of a big man who can also defend through trade of some of our availble assets (i.e. - Bibby/Artest), we should just bide our time until cap space clears and then look to sign the right guy to finish the puzzle.