Rebuilding the Sacramento Kings...

[KF10]

-= original quote snipped =-



Bibby isn't the type of player nor is he in the type of position to where he needs to recover his value. He is only a real viable option for a certain number of teams and in even fewer circumstances. Bibby could come back and score 30 points and dish out 10 assists per game for the next month and that still won't change things. All it would do is create questions as to whether or not he should be traded. I'd hate to see the powers that be say, "Hey, we can make the playoffs! Lets keep this together for one more season!" Then have Beno Udrih and Ron Artest walk at the end of the year for nothing because we didn't do what needed to be done. Now I don't think the urgency to move Bibby is as great as it is to move Artest (unless the Kings are willing to sign Ron and make him a fixture in Sac for years to come and can find a way to put the pieces around him to win, still plausible, maybe not from a cap standpoint however) Bibby is what he is, 9 previous seasons provide more insight into the player he is than the 1 injured season.

Teams interested in him will most certainly be ones that don't have all that many assets to go after somebody not on the market. They inherently will not have high draft pick possibilities and be deep in young talent due to drafting towards the bottom of the first round recently because they are a good team.

Bibby is on the market by simple way of not being seen as a piece to build on for the future. Bibby and Artest are on the market, it may be tough to get them but both teams involved have an agenda. Ours is supposedly to get draft picks and cap space. That Cavs deal looks about right to me if that is truly what they are looking for. As for dumping Kenny, I think a Cavs trade is the only realistic chance that we move Kenny with Bibby. Otherwise he goes with Ron and we get lesser value from him.

I disagree. Why we are trading Bibby if knowing we are going to get the lesser deal a trade? Bibby has the right to improve his value IF we are trying to trade him.... Hypothetically, if Bibby played even better than his career year, why trade him? Assuming that he is a more balance PG...

All in all, Im not trading Bibby just get a lesser deal...(He is in a situation that his value could go up...His value wont go down lower anymore)

[Bac2Basics]

-= original quote snipped =-
Well it depends on what reports you listen to. More than half of the ones I read say that they don't have enough expiring contracts to get it done. Last year it was said the Kings were interested in Gooden, they then signed Mikki Moore and that supposedly put the kabosh on that one. Then you have another report out of Cleveland IIRC, that said Ferry said anything but LBJ is OK. Then you have reports now that say taking on Kenny Thomas may be too much, which I don't believe because it really wouldn't destroy the Cav's cap much more than it already is.
But....I think they have the pieces to get it done!
Bibby/Kenny for Gooden/Snow/Jones/08 1st lotto protected sounds more than fair to me! If Ferry won't budge maybe even swith Gooden with Marshall. If Petrie is turning that down I don't know what the heck he really wants. If Ferry thinks thats too much he needs to put down the poker face and listen to the superstar in his right ear begging for help. And he should be careful and not settle for second best. That's how the Heat most likely took themselves out of the running for Artest/Bibby.

Gooden is redundent unless the Kings move both KT & SAR
Snow, Marshall & Jones are all neutral to negative trade value items and neutral is best case scenario. Additionally, sense none of these players expire before Bibby, you're just adding a roster spot or two for guys that have no future with the team.
The mid to late round 1st is fine but isn't likely to make up for all the losses taken from the complete & total lacking of quality from the rest of the package coming back from Cleveland.

Any Kings fan that thinks this is a good idea probably only thinks so because they got tricked into drinking the LBJ4MVP23/Cleveland Fan Kool-Aid. An objective look at the package most Cav's fans are willing to offer is clearly lacking elements that Petrie would seek.

[loserX]

Gooden is redundent unless the Kings move both KT & SAR

No he isn't, because he's currently a better scorer and rebounder than both those guys put together. (He's also a better player than Moore.) Are you telling me that if the Kings dumped SAR but kept KT, they would still turn down Gooden because he's redundant?

[WarFan]

I would change the first trade to Bibby for Gibson, Snow and Newble plus Justin Williams for Cleveland's TE. This way the Kings get some real salary relief (about 6 million) next year.

The second and third deals look real good to me, except you gotta let them keep Douby. I actually think that Snow would be a good veteran to have around a young team, so unless he was willing to lose a significant amount on a buyout I'd cut one of Dixon/Jones/Newble instead.

All together these deals save the Kings 7.8 million this year, 16.9 next, 21.2 in '09 and they add 6.9 million in'10.

[sackings916]

-= original quote snipped =-



Gooden is redundent unless the Kings move both KT & SAR
Snow, Marshall & Jones are all neutral to negative trade value items and neutral is best case scenario. Additionally, sense none of these players expire before Bibby, you're just adding a roster spot or two for guys that have no future with the team.
The mid to late round 1st is fine but isn't likely to make up for all the losses taken from the complete & total lacking of quality from the rest of the package coming back from Cleveland.

Any Kings fan that thinks this is a good idea probably only thinks so because they got tricked into drinking the LBJ4MVP23/Cleveland Fan Kool-Aid. An objective look at the package most Cav's fans are willing to offer is clearly lacking elements that Petrie would seek.

Gooden and KT are similar on the boards, but Gooden is superior offensively. And its the opposite with SAR, both can score(who knows now if SAR can) but Gooden is superior on the boards so getting Gooden who would expire after next season should have nothing to do with Kenny/SAR.

As for a Bibby to Cleveland trade IMO their 1st with Gooden would have to go the other way for Petrie to budge.

[RIPskaterdude]

-= original quote snipped =-



Gooden and KT are similar on the boards, but Gooden is superior offensively. And its the opposite with SAR, both can score(who knows now if SAR can) but Gooden is superior on the boards so getting Gooden who would expire after next season should have nothing to do with Kenny/SAR.

As for a Bibby to Cleveland trade IMO their 1st with Gooden would have to go the other way for Petrie to budge.

There is no reason for the Kings to trade for Gooden with KT, SAR, Hawes, Miller, Williams, and Moore as PF/C.

[shrink]

I guess I don't agree that Bibby is going to dramaticly raise his trade value by playing a few weeks before the deadline. NBA GM's know what Bibby can do and what Bibby can't do. Waiting does not change the marketplace.

Bibby might be the best attainable PG, but he's also extremely expensive. As SAC waits, more and more teams decide this isn't their year, and will not only stop being potential buyers of Bibby, but as they put more time into their young PG's, they may even add their own veteran PG to the crowded market selling PG's. While Bibby may be the best PG available, off the top of my head I can name fiveveteran options already (Andre Miller, Cassell, Jason Williams, Stephon Marbury (with a buy-out), Earl Watson, Damon Stoudamire (with a buy-out) that are all less expensive. Several others may be on the market soon (Brevin Knight, Anthony Johnson, Jarrett Jack, Chris Duhon).

The poster that said SAC is in the driver's seat here is clearly not following the market. Yes, Mike Bibby is the best of these guys, but there are many alternatives that teams will be anxious to deal, and none carry max-deal financial pain.

[shrink]

I'd also point out that after the Anderson Varejao deal, CLE is firmly into the lux. I think the SAC fans idea of using Bibby to off-load Kenny Thomas is one-sided. The only thing worse than paying Kenny Thomas' contract is paying double Kenny Thomas' contract.

[sackings916]

The Kings should just keep Bibby honestly. We are only 4 or 5 losses out of the 8th seed and there is still a very long way to go. Make that playoff push now that we are healthy and see what happens.

[spree8]

If Artest is going to cost us Lee then no....even Ron agrees with that.

[Smills91]

I guess I don't agree that Bibby is going to dramaticly raise his trade value by playing a few weeks before the deadline. NBA GM's know what Bibby can do and what Bibby can't do. Waiting does not change the marketplace.
Bibby might be the best attainable PG, but he's also extremely expensive. As SAC waits, more and more teams decide this isn't their year, and will not only stop being potential buyers of Bibby, but as they put more time into their young PG's, they may even add their own veteran PG to the crowded market selling PG's. While Bibby may be the best PG available, off the top of my head I can name fiveveteran options already (Andre Miller, Cassell, Jason Williams, Stephon Marbury (with a buy-out), Earl Watson, Damon Stoudamire (with a buy-out) that are all less expensive. Several others may be on the market soon (Brevin Knight, Anthony Johnson, Jarrett Jack, Chris Duhon).

The poster that said SAC is in the driver's seat here is clearly not following the market. Yes, Mike Bibby is the best of these guys, but there are many alternatives that teams will be anxious to deal, and none carry max-deal financial pain.

Shrink, your logic here is SEVERELY flawed. Let me explain this misconception that you have to you, AGAIN. Let's break this down into quantifiable pieces. Since trade value is subjective, let's ignore that aspect of the trade amongst all these players. However, contract's ARE quantifiable and you're saying Bibby is MORE expensive than these other players. I disagree. The ONLY players that are full-blown 'CHEAPER' to come by financially than bibby are those that expire at season's end...Cassell, Jason Williams, Chris Duhon etc.

When you TRADE for a player it invokes the 75% rule...because of this the team that receive's Bibby has to send out AT LEAST ~10 million dollars to match the 75% rule. This, in fact is costing said team around 3-4 million dollars, NOT 14.5 million unless they send out pure expirings. Looking at the teams MOST LIKELY to end up pursuing Bibby, Cavs, Knicks, Heat...only the heat have a significant amount of salary that expires and IMO is the reason why they're the most UNlikely to acquire Bibby between the those three teams. There aren't a lot of expiring contracts this season so the point is relatively moot.

Bibby is in FACT CHEAPER for a team like the Cavs/Knicks than options such as Watson, Ridnour, etc because his contract is SHORTER than those options. You're right though, Bibby is the absolutely the BEST overall obtainable PG available talent wise.

Let's use the Cavs as an example...since they're the most obsessed with acquiring Bibby.

They can send out contracts like Gooden/Snow/Marshall/Jones/Newble only Newble expires and I believe he has a contract under 3 million which in NBA standards is peanuts.

I'm not going to use prospects or picks in my example because that requires subjectivity. But objectively it requires 2-3 contracts by the Cavs to match salary and since these contracts are the SAME length..the Cavs are trading salary for salary thus making bibby a LESS expensive option than a Watson/Ridnour type because he has an equal number of years left on his contract. The cavs MOVE the SAME amount of salary OUT and leave the contract status within 25% or less of what it was BEFORE the trade. How does this make Bibby an expensive option? It DOESN'T! His contract replaces the number of WORTHLESS contracts like a Snow/Jones/Marshall that is found on the Cavs. It's just re-committing the SAME amount of money already committed from scrubs to an actual Production enhancement player in Bibby.

So dancing around and stating Bibby is a MORE expensive option is a ridiculous declaration on your part because you're IGNORING the fact that in trades SALARIES go out and well as come in. You're making a unilateral assumption, when it's in fact bilateral business transaction.

The only real scenario where Bibby is in fact MORE expensive is if he's dealt to the Heat for J-Will/Davis.

All those other players you mention require the same $ for $ match as Bibby does. It may be easier to faciliate the match with those players, but that doesn't make them significantly less expensive because the match is still required. Matching contracts is a completely different argument than contract expense. If Bibby is the best available talent, then it's wise for a team that has the ability to match contracts to pursue the most talented player, because all they're doing is re-investing multiple BAD stocks(Marshall/Snow) into a ONE BETTER stock (Bibby)

[chriswebb86]

The Kings should just keep Bibby honestly. We are only 4 or 5 losses out of the 8th seed and there is still a very long way to go. Make that playoff push now that we are healthy and see what happens.

At this point, thats where I am at. How can it hurt us anyways? The only way I move him is if we can move K9. Other then that I would rather wait tell the summer or next season when his value becomes since he will be an exp.

[loserX]

Bibby is in FACT CHEAPER for a team like the Cavs/Knicks than options such as Watson, Ridnour, etc because his contract is SHORTER than those options.

You make some good points in this post, but this part is just plain wrong. Even discounting the rest of this season:

money owed to Bibby after this year: $14.5M
money owed to Watson after this year: $12.8M
money owed to Ridnour after this year: $13.0M

How is Bibby cheaper, exactly?

Also, keep in mind that the Cavs and Knicks (for instance) project to be in the luxury tax next year, but not the year after. That means that any moneys added next year will be doubled, but the year after's (probably) won't. Since Bibby makes $8M more NEXT year than Watson or Ridnour, the financial effect of taking him on is MUCH greater.

[shrink]

If Bibby is the best available talent, then it's wise for a team that has the ability to match contracts to pursue the most talented player, because all they're doing is re-investing multiple BAD stocks(Marshall/Snow) into a ONE BETTER stock (Bibby)

I'm sorry -- I didn't realize you were accepting "Marshall and Snow" for a reinvestment! That doesn't seem very SMills-like at all! But .. DEAL!

I think argueing that teams need to salary match is misses the point. Do you really think that you need to inform us ignorant posters about matching salary affects all teams, including the Kings? Thanks -- I never really understood that ChadeTrecker thingie either!

FINANCIALLY, the amount of money/contracts needed to match Bibby is more than every option I listed .. including Watson and his extra year, since Bibby costs more than DOUBLE his annual salary (not to mention you get an extra year of production out of Watson). FINANCIALLY, it may cost even more long-term because the rebuilding Kings would probably prefer shorter deals, and some of the many other options might not.

For TRADE VALUE, the Kings seem to be demanding more than what the market will bear as well.

Look - the price is the price. If you want to argue that these teams are anxious to lock up $14 mil of their salary in Bibby, instead of getting a lesser, but far more economical piece, you're welcome to do so. But the market exists, and there are many many alternatives to Mike Bibby out there, which is why you're getting so many "No's!" on your over-priced demands.

[Smills91]

Shrink the conracts going OUT MATCH the contract coming in. It's that simple. In both cost and length. It's a comparative swap...Watson being dealt to Cleveland for Snowmay be less on a year to year basis, but then you still have the contract of Marshall which nullifies any cost savings but then you just added TWO more years to the overall length of the contracts thus costing MORE money.

[shrink]

So Bibby for Marshall and Snow is OK with you, right?

[shrink]

When you TRADE for a player it invokes the 75% rule...because of this the team that receive's Bibby has to send out AT LEAST ~10 million dollars to match the 75% rule.

Incidently professor, can you go over this 75% rule. I know that the Collective Bargaining Agreement requires that the team adding salary must be within 125% + $100,000, but I never heard of a minimum on the other side, and certainly no 75% That's not even the inverse, so can you go over this rule again for all of us ignorant trade board posters?

[sac89837]

pja thanks for taking on the Kings. It interesting to see a non-fans view of our roster. However like the other posters I don't see any of the three trades happening for a couple of reasons.

The first trade does not save us any money since Bibby is also expiring next year. He also has a player option and may decide just to opt out (however stupid that may be.) We also get a player back who is a very good shooter, but we have no one this team to create for him.

The second trade would be great but the Knicks would never go for it. Otherwise it should have happened by now. The Knicks are just not giving up David Lee. I think Artest-> New York still has merrit if we get to dump KT and SAR.

The last trade you made a fatal flaw. Moore does not need any more time in the middle. Moore cannot play Center, he is a +/- +38 with Miller and -80 without him. I would rather keep Brad and Douby than a draft pick in the 20's.

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

I think what Kings fans don't understand is that there is no market for Bibby. There really were only 2 teams, the Cavs and Heat, that wanted Bibby. Now it looks like the Heat want to rebuild, so that knocks them out of the equation. So, to say that the Kings are in the driver's seat is incorrect. If the Kings want to get a 1st and dump KT, then they won't be getting any true talent in return.

Bibby and KT for Marshall, Snow, Newble, 1st, (maybe Simmons or Shannon Brown) makes the most sense. The Cavs keep their core players, and the Kings dump KT's contract and get a 1st and maybe a young player. Asking for any more is ridiculous. If you want Gooden, then you don't get the 1st, and we may not take back KT and ask for Moore instead. It's that simple.

[SactownHrtBrks8]

I think what Kings fans don't understand is that there is no market for Bibby. There really were only 2 teams, the Cavs and Heat, that wanted Bibby. Now it looks like the Heat want to rebuild, so that knocks them out of the equation. So, to say that the Kings are in the driver's seat is incorrect. If the Kings want to get a 1st and dump KT, then they won't be getting any true talent in return.

Bibby and KT for Marshall, Snow, Newble, 1st, (maybe Simmons or Shannon Brown) makes the most sense. The Cavs keep their core players, and the Kings dump KT's contract and get a 1st and maybe a young player. Asking for any more is ridiculous. If you want Gooden, then you don't get the 1st, and we may not take back KT and ask for Moore instead. It's that simple.

Then the Kings can wait until the offseason when he is a good player with a large valuable expiring contract.