Anyone care for a Sessions trade to Sacto?

Busch Legion · Post #1 » by **Busch Legion** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:30 am

For a package that nets us Tyreke Evans in the end?

Post #2 » by **Klomp** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:34 am

skydragonslashs wrote:For a package that nets us Tyreke Evans in the end?

Depends on the rest of the package...

John Doe [MIN] · Post #3 » by **John Doe [MIN]** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:34 am

Unless I'm misreading the numbers, Sacramento has enough cap room that they could have offered Sessions a deal identical to the one we gave him. So, although I consider Evans more valuable than Sessions, chances are Sacramento thinks so all the more.

Now, if this idea were revisited a year from now, when Sessions numbers have been massively boosted by getting full-time starter's minutes and Evans has struggled to master the point, you might have something...

Post #4 » by **Basti** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:38 am

I'm not so sure about Tyreke and his skills but aren't his skills contradictory with Flynn?

lobishome · Post #5 » by **lobishome** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:54 pm

This is crazy ...

Sacto can draft Rubio, but draft #4 Tyreke, and Minnie draft #5 Ricky and #6 Flynn, and now you want Tyreke and send him to Sacto. ¡And Kahn don't want trade Ricky rights!

Is this basket or Monopoly? :crazy:

Esohny · Post #6 » by **Esohny** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:17 pm

Harden and Evans were the two most talented SG prospects in the draft, and both were gone when we picked. I don't think it's rocket science. Some people are looking to trade one of our 3 young talented PGs for a talented young SG.

As for SAC, I think they'd be better off trading either Martin or Evans and picking up a true PG, but I doubt they trade Evans unless someone bowls them over.

shrink · Post #7 » by **shrink** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:25 pm

John Doe [MN] wrote:Unless I'm misreading the numbers, Sacramento has enough cap room that they could have offered Sessions a deal identical to the one we gave him. So, although I consider Evans more valuable than Sessions, chances are Sacramento thinks so all the more.

Now, if this idea were revisited a year from now, when Sessions numbers have been massively boosted by getting full-time starter's minutes and Evans has struggled to master the point, you might have something...

Good post. This why Sessions should not be leading the current Trade Value voting. Half the teams in the NBA could have used their MLE and signed Sessions for our offer, and given up no lottery picks. Now, maybe they never asked, or they had lux issues that a trade would help vs. an outright signing, but Sessions just went through the open market, so we know exactly what the market will bear for his price.

I will say though skydragons that I like the thinking here, and it may be something worth revisiting. Both Sessions and Tyreke Evans are high-upside players, and depending on where we and the Kings end up, this is something to keep an eye on later in the season because of better potential fits.

Narf · Post #8 » by **Narf** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:18 pm

Right idea, wrong person.

Sacramento had Flynn neck and neck with Evans. They need a PG, they need a distributor, and their best player is already a SG.

Flynn + not that much might net Evans. Evans could play 13 mpg at PG and shift over to SG for 15 MPG unless we decide strictly a SG.

On paper that's a good idea for both teams. Even though it would suck to get rid of Flynn.

Busch Legion · Post #9 » by **Busch Legion** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:51 pm

Yeah my apologies, I forgot to put down that reason... When Evans more than likely fails at the point, where do Martin and Evans fit?

They'll need that pg, we'll take that sg, as already stated. That was my thinking.

AQuintus · Post #10 » by **AQuintus** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:19 pm

skydragonslashs wrote:Yeah my apologies, I forgot to put down that reason... When Evans more than likely fails at the point, where do Martin and Evans fit?

They'll need that pg, we'll take that sg, as already stated. That was my thinking.

The only problem with this thinking is that Evans looked terrible at the SG when he played for Memphis.

shrink · Post #11 » by **shrink** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:04 pm

Narf wrote:Right idea, wrong person.

Sacramento had Flynn neck and neck with Evans. They need a PG, they need a distributor, and their best player is already a SG.

Flynn + not that much might net Evans. Evans could play 13 mpg at PG and shift over to SG for 15 MPG unless we decide strictly a SG.

On paper that's a good idea for both teams. Even though it would suck to get rid of Flynn.

Agreed. How about Flynn plus nothing?

Tyreke Evans 3,610,080 3,880,920 4,151,640 5,251,825 6,927,157
Jonny Flynn.. 2,969,280 3,192,000 3,414,720 4,329,865 5,776,040
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAC SAVES:
0.64 2009-10
0.69 2010-11
0.74 2011-12
0.88 2012-13
1.14 2013-14 qualifying offer
--------------------
$4.09 Payroll SAVINGS

And of course, saving payroll > saving cash

Of course at this point, both teams may reject it. Once we've picked him, we tend to fall in love with the upside of whoever we pick.

GopherIt! · Post #12 » by **GopherIt!** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:27 am

AQuintus wrote:
skydragonslashs wrote:Yeah my apologies, I forgot to put down that reason... When Evans more than likely fails at the point, where do Martin and Evans fit?

They'll need that pg, we'll take that sg, as already stated. That was my thinking.

The only problem with this thinking is that Evans looked terrible at the SG when he played for Memphis.

Could we play Evans at the point and Sessions off the ball and then switch them up on defense?