Martin OFFER ideas

Draino · Post #1 » by **Draino** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:58 am

IF Kevin Martin was to be traded, lets just say IF... who/what would YOU personally prefer getting in return. I mean reasonable deals that the other team would do. I don't mean just positions, I mean specific players/picks/pancakes (for sean may), whatever...

I personally would love to get Devin Harris from the Nets, maybe put in a few fillers from each team to sweeten the deal, but Harris would be the man for me

Post #2 » by **KF10** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:04 am

IF and only IF Martin was to be traded, the most ideal and most value is Devin Harris.

Yes, it has been tried in the trading board. Oddly enough, there was some interest on both parties. But to be honest, I think the idea is to pair up Martin and Harris together not trading for each other.

Crimson King · Post #3 » by **Crimson King** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:31 am

Not sure if it still makes sense for them, now they have Courtney Lee and Terrence Williams.

An obvious offer would be one of Wolves PGs (Flynn/Rubio) + expirings.

Inc · Post #4 » by **Inc** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:51 am

Something like Thad Young + Holiday for K-Mart?

Or am I overvaluing K-Mart?

Website · Post #5 » by **Nicky Nix Nook** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:17 am

Inc wrote:Something like Thad Young + Holiday for K-Mart?

Or am I overvaluing K-Mart?

Phila fans said they would do that...I wouldnt. Martin is perfect next to Evans and we don't Holiday (Evans) or Thad (Thompson) even though he IS a natural 3 IMO.

SacTownKings4Life · Post #6 » by **SacTownKings4Life** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:52 pm

I suppose now that its been officially rumored, people are gonna start jumping even harder onto the "trade K-Mart" bandwagon... :roll:

My question is, why are we so obsessed with trading away young talent when we're trying to rebuild?
There IS no quick fix possible for us, so why can't we just let this young core (Evans, Martin, Thompson, Hawes) develop together? You can't ever hope to improve without continuity.

You can't expect to develop a good young team if you trade away people for not producing "fast enough". Just look at the Hawks... The Blazers...

All I know is this, if K-Mart does finally get traded (to many people's delight), I hope people don't turn right back around saying "why did we trade K-Mart?"

The same thing happened when Chris Webber finally got traded.
Everytime I turned around, I was hearing nothing but "trade Webber" on sports talk shows and various other message boards.
But then as soon as he GOT traded, suddenly everybody's like "WHY DID WE TRADE HIM???"

Same thing with Rick Adelman, "FIRE ADELMAN!" "ADELMAN CAN'T COACH!" ...
"WHY DID WE FIRE ADELMAN???" "WE SHOULD HAVE KEPT ADELMAN!"

wiltchamberlain · Post #7 » by **wiltchamberlain** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:13 pm

I'd disagree somewhat with your analogy with Webber. I personally think that the intention to trade Chris was a good one, but that the trade itself (essentially Webber for Kenny Thomas) was horrible. I think most fans even today would say that trading Webber wasn't a mistake, the mistake was in what the Kings brought back. However, I do think your Rick Adelman comparison is spot on.

darkadun · Post #8 » by **darkadun** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:48 pm

I Agreed with NNN and Kings4Life. I see no real reason to trade Martin right now. The most logical move is to wait and see what these guys are capable of and then see what move would make sense, and if trading Martin can fill that hole in our roster.

Yet, given the scenerio, Harris for Martin is good enough, but I don't see the point with Evans now. I'd prefer trading him for a borderline all-star SF, or PF.

rpa · Post #9 » by **rpa** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:48 pm

First off, the whole "Kings trading Martin stuff" is utter BS. The premise of the article (that the Kings are very open to trading him and that he may want out) are not even remotely supported by the article itself.

Second off, before the draft I would have said that it's a smart idea to trade Martin; now, however, I'm not so sure. In my mind there are a number of issues here (some unknowns) that make trading Martin a flat out dumb idea:
1) We don't know if Evans can play the point well yet. The team THINKS he can but maybe he can't. If it's proven he can't (and therein lies another problem: they won't give up on Evans at point in a month or even in a year) then trading Martin may be a good idea. But trading him before we know anything about where Evans will play is just a BAD idea.
2) Assuming Evans can play the point what kind of player do you want next to him at the 2? More than likely it's a guy who can play off the ball. Martin seems like a near perfect fit next to a ball dominating guard.
3) Again assuming Evans can play point, what are the Kings missing? We'd have our PG (Evans) and our frontline (Hawes & Thompson) so in trading Martin we'd target a SG (but why not just keep Martin) or a SF. To me it seems pointless to trade Martin for a SF since SF is the easiest position to fill in the league.

The only remotely good scenario I can see for trading Martin would be if the Kings consolidated young talent. Something like Martin & Thompson for a STUD, young big man (no, not Amare). Other than that though, any Martin trade would almost certainly be one where the Kings would be dispersing talent (i.e. Martin for a 1st rounder, some decent prospect(s), and a salary dump of Beno)--which is something the Kings shouldn't even remotely consider.

darkadun · Post #10 » by **darkadun** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:51 pm

Post #11 » by **KF10** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:56 pm

RoyalCourtJestr · Post #12 » by **RoyalCourtJestr** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:15 pm

If the right deal comes along, then pulling the trigger is fine. Actively seeking Martin's depature is foolish at the moment. We haven't even seen how he and Evans will play together.

Post #13 » by **ICMTM** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:48 pm

If you are trading Martin it's for a big not a shooting guard anyway IMO and it's definitely not for a PG.

deNIEd · Post #14 » by **deNIEd** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:19 pm

rpa wrote:First off, the whole "Kings trading Martin stuff" is utter BS. The premise of the article (that the Kings are very open to trading him and that he may want out) are not even remotely supported by the article itself.

Second off, before the draft I would have said that it's a smart idea to trade Martin; now, however, I'm not so sure. In my mind there are a number of issues here (some unknowns) that make trading Martin a flat out dumb idea:
1) We don't know if Evans can play the point well yet. The team THINKS he can but maybe he can't. If it's proven he can't (and therein lies another problem: they won't give up on Evans at point in a month or even in a year) then trading Martin may be a good idea. But trading him before we know anything about where Evans will play is just a BAD idea.
2) Assuming Evans can play the point what kind of player do you want next to him at the 2? More than likely it's a guy who can play off the ball. Martin seems like a near perfect fit next to a ball dominating guard.
3) Again assuming Evans can play point, what are the Kings missing? We'd have our PG (Evans) and our frontline (Hawes & Thompson) so in trading Martin we'd target a SG (but why not just keep Martin) or a SF. To me it seems pointless to trade Martin for a SF since SF is the easiest position to fill in the league.

The only remotely good scenario I can see for trading Martin would be if the Kings consolidated young talent. Something like Martin & Thompson for a STUD, young big man (no, not Amare). Other than that though, any Martin trade would almost certainly be one where the Kings would be dispersing talent (i.e. Martin for a 1st rounder, some decent prospect(s), and a salary dump of Beno)--which is something the Kings shouldn't even remotely consider.

Or you can simply view it as, Evan's can't play the point. A backcourt of Evans/Martin doesn't work out and doesn't have enough ball handling abilities and lacks playmaking ability.

What then?

Of course, like you said, if Evans works out at PG, then trading Martin is kind of pointless to even talk about, therefore if we talk about Martin being traded it should be under the assumption that Evans can't be a point guard.

rpa · Post #15 » by **rpa** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:56 pm

deNIEd wrote:Or you can simply view it as, Evan's can't play the point. A backcourt of Evans/Martin doesn't work out and doesn't have enough ball handling abilities and lacks playmaking ability.

I personally don't view Evans as a PG but I think it's pretty presumptuous (especially given Petrie's history) to insist that he definitely won't work there and that we should accommodate his move to SG.

My general feeling is that we really need to wait and see what we actually have before we make a move. If Evans IS a stud but is NOT a PG then we may need to move Martin--I'm just not going to commit to a complete unknown at this point unless the Kings got a "too good to be true deal".

I mean, if Denver was dumb enough to give us Melo for a package centered around Martin then sure; but we all know that that kind of deal falls under the "too good to be true" kind of deal.

JSrose115 · Post #16 » by **JSrose115** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:00 pm

deal k mart to the bulls for derrick rose

might have to give up another piece.....but a back court of rose and evans would be sick!

rpa · Post #17 » by **rpa** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:03 pm

^ The Bulls would laugh you off the phone if you offer Martin for Rose as a base for a trade the same way Petrie would laugh them off the phone if they countered with a "anything else on our team" offer for Martin.

JSrose115 · Post #18 » by **JSrose115** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:13 pm

rpa wrote:^ The Bulls would laugh you off the phone if you offer Martin for Rose as a base for a trade the same way Petrie would laugh them off the phone if they countered with a "anything else on our team" offer for Martin.

obviously thats a no brainer. thats why we would have to give up another piece...even though the bulls had interest in hawes...a martin/hawes for rose is not worth it for the kings...so i think its near impossible to find a fair developing trade for both teams.

its just entertaining to bring up in the boards.

deNIEd · Post #19 » by **deNIEd** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:23 pm

JSrose115 wrote:
rpa wrote:^ The Bulls would laugh you off the phone if you offer Martin for Rose as a base for a trade the same way Petrie would laugh them off the phone if they countered with a "anything else on our team" offer for Martin.

obviously thats a no brainer. thats why we would have to give up another piece...even though the bulls had interest in hawes...a martin/hawes for rose is not worth it for the kings...so i think its near impossible to find a fair developing trade for both teams.

its just entertaining to bring up in the boards.

They won't even do it for Martin/Hawes.

It'd have to be like Martin/Thompson/Hawes for Rose/Noah

You never trade rookie talent like Rose for anything sort of a massive lobsided trade.

deNIEd · Post #20 » by **deNIEd** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:27 pm

rpa wrote:
deNIEd wrote:Or you can simply view it as, Evan's can't play the point. A backcourt of Evans/Martin doesn't work out and doesn't have enough ball handling abilities and lacks playmaking ability.

I personally don't view Evans as a PG but I think it's pretty presumptuous (especially given Petrie's history) to insist that he definitely won't work there and that we should accommodate his move to SG.

My general feeling is that we really need to wait and see what we actually have before we make a move. If Evans IS a stud but is NOT a PG then we may need to move Martin--I'm just not going to commit to a complete unknown at this point unless the Kings got a "too good to be true deal".

I mean, if Denver was dumb enough to give us Melo for a package centered around Martin then sure; but we all know that that kind of deal falls under the "too good to be true" kind of deal.

Oh I agree that the notion of trading Martin is still far to early; that we need to first watch Evans for a while.

However, when I saw this thread and thought "trade Martin" I automatically made the assumption that Evans can't play PG at all. He is very ball dominant, and if he can play PG, he needs an off-ball SG (aka Martin, he is the best in the league)...so the idea becomes stupid.

Lol, I don't think we are disagreeing with each other at all, just unclear about what I was saying.