ImageImageImageImageImage

16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35*

Moderators: codydaze, KF10

User avatar
City of Trees
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 15,877
And1: 5,532
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1541 » by City of Trees » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:25 am

Eating $20M in cap space for three years is worth more than one pick in the #25-#30 range. I need more.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
OGSactownballer
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,764
And1: 1,386
Joined: Oct 02, 2005

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1542 » by OGSactownballer » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:45 am

jazanetti wrote:I see nothing criminal in Wall's words. He admitted that Porter is good enough while George is super-star. It's true and if you have a chance to get that calibre player, you have to do everything for it.
In any case Washington wouldn't let Porter go, but we lose nothing making him max offer.


No I agree with PUS and SB comments just before yours.

These guys are competitive athletes. Porter was the starter for the team that gave Cleveland their toughest push this year. It's insulting to have a teammate talk that way in the press about you.

As far as how much Porter is worth, well I look at it this way. Porter just finished his first year as the full time starter and posted his best numbers as one of the better two-way SF's in the league. And that was also with one of the highest 3-PT %'s as well. And he is 24 so his peak years are still ahead of him. As a comparison to the guy that Wall would have replace him, he's about a year or two older on about the same track as Paul George. Now I'm not saying that I expect that ceiling out of him, but I'd rather have him than most guys because he plays in the top group at his position and does so efficiently and at both ends. He also fits our timeline perfectly long term.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 35,449
And1: 20,787
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1543 » by dckingsfan » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:20 pm

Sactowndog wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
Sactowndog wrote:The max for Porter is too much but he has improved every year and you can make an aggressive offer for him. It might put the wizards in a tough spot.

No, the Wizards will put the Wizards in a tough spot and offer more to Porter than any other team :nonono:

I'm not sure that is a bad thing. I'm okay with waiting a year or two to see how our young guys progress, who will be good and who will be a bust. It may not be the people we think now. For example, I looked at Papa's stats and was presently surprised.

Sometimes you have to keep your powder dry until you see the whites of their eyes.

This - in a way this is what the Wizards did and then blew it last season. They took their time and let Wall/Beal/Porter develop.

But then they went big into FA with Nicholson and Mahinmi :nonono:

My two cents: Let the young guys develop and then add around them. Who are those young guys that will develop? We will know in 2019.

In the meantime - stash assets.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 35,449
And1: 20,787
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1544 » by dckingsfan » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:21 pm

OGSactownballer wrote:
jazanetti wrote:I see nothing criminal in Wall's words. He admitted that Porter is good enough while George is super-star. It's true and if you have a chance to get that calibre player, you have to do everything for it.
In any case Washington wouldn't let Porter go, but we lose nothing making him max offer.


No I agree with PUS and SB comments just before yours.

These guys are competitive athletes. Porter was the starter for the team that gave Cleveland their toughest push this year. It's insulting to have a teammate talk that way in the press about you.

As far as how much Porter is worth, well I look at it this way. Porter just finished his first year as the full time starter and posted his best numbers as one of the better two-way SF's in the league. And that was also with one of the highest 3-PT %'s as well. And he is 24 so his peak years are still ahead of him. As a comparison to the guy that Wall would have replace him, he's about a year or two older on about the same track as Paul George. Now I'm not saying that I expect that ceiling out of him, but I'd rather have him than most guys because he plays in the top group at his position and does so efficiently and at both ends. He also fits our timeline perfectly long term.

I don't think Wall wants to replace Porter. He wants to add George to Porter. I doubt he has thought through all the cap ramifications.
enderwilson
Pro Prospect
Posts: 778
And1: 152
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
 

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1545 » by enderwilson » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:42 pm

When it comes to Ryan Anderson, I say yes. As long as it comes with the requested assets, I think he could be a good contributing vet.
Otto Porter? On the surface, yes again, but I don't know anything about the guy's character.

I'm for adding vets that contribute to the growth of the youth. I hear the arguments for playing time, but no one seems to care about the toll that losses take on the development of players. Kenny Smith stated the exact same concern on draft night, and being a former player and current NBA analyst I have a lot of faith that The Jet knows what he's talking about.

So if we can add quality vets to eat up cap space and add assets, this is the best possible direction for the Kings and development of our youth.
User avatar
City of Trees
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 15,877
And1: 5,532
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1546 » by City of Trees » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:59 pm

Well Houston just traded their assets away to LAC for CP3. Wonder if they still want to move Anderson? Earliest pick HOU can deal is 2020 1st. I would pass.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
Sactowndog
Kings Forum Mock Draft Champ
Posts: 4,486
And1: 1,832
Joined: May 27, 2017

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1547 » by Sactowndog » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:25 pm

City of Trees wrote:Well Houston just traded their assets away to LAC for CP3. Wonder if they still want to move Anderson? Earliest pick HOU can deal is 2020 1st. I would pass.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app


Yep so it also means San Antonio now has no need to clear cap space. Feel bad for KL. Best player in the league with no chance to compete against Houston or GS.
rpa
RealGM
Posts: 15,084
And1: 7,901
Joined: Nov 24, 2006

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1548 » by rpa » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:32 pm

City of Trees wrote:Eating $20M in cap space for three years is worth more than one pick in the #25-#30 range. I need more.


This x 1000

In years past I seem to remember (might be wrong) that most of these salary dumps were expiring or 2 year deals. It's interesting that teams are regretting those contracts (Deng, Mozgov, Turner, Crabbe, etc.) so quickly this summer and think they can dump them for roughly the same cost as it used to take to dump a 1-2 year deal. If I'm the Kings there's no way I'm taking up massive amounts of my cap for what's likely to be a role player.
User avatar
codydaze
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 6,543
And1: 5,077
Joined: Jul 06, 2013
Location: Sacramento, CA
     

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1549 » by codydaze » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:46 pm

Sactowndog wrote:
City of Trees wrote:Well Houston just traded their assets away to LAC for CP3. Wonder if they still want to move Anderson? Earliest pick HOU can deal is 2020 1st. I would pass.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app


Yep so it also means San Antonio now has no need to clear cap space. Feel bad for KL. Best player in the league with no chance to compete against Houston or GS.


The basketball fan in me is hoping they go after Kyle Lowry. I think he would be a good fit too with SA. Whatever they do, they need to get rid of LMA.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 24,085
And1: 1,084
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1550 » by SacKingZZZ » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:39 pm

codydaze wrote:
Sactowndog wrote:
City of Trees wrote:Well Houston just traded their assets away to LAC for CP3. Wonder if they still want to move Anderson? Earliest pick HOU can deal is 2020 1st. I would pass.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app


Yep so it also means San Antonio now has no need to clear cap space. Feel bad for KL. Best player in the league with no chance to compete against Houston or GS.


The basketball fan in me is hoping they go after Kyle Lowry. I think he would be a good fit too with SA. Whatever they do, they need to get rid of LMA.



That would be a good move. SA is in a strange spot. If there is truth to the LMA rumors then possibly rebuilding on the fly might be in order. I think they can still salvage something though. For some reason I see them in major pursuit of Blake Griffin.
User avatar
City of Trees
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 15,877
And1: 5,532
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1551 » by City of Trees » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:24 pm

Lowe says at least two teams wanted two 1st round picks for Ryan Anderson.

I knew no one would take that contract for free.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
VeganKingsFan
Junior
Posts: 288
And1: 81
Joined: May 09, 2017
 

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1552 » by VeganKingsFan » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:52 pm

I just thought of something. I think the leaks about the Kings being interested in some of the higher end free agents is a smokescreen. It is to show teams that want to unload cap space on us that we value our cap space and that we hold all the cards and not them. The Kings can basically tell other teams that they could use that space on these free agents, so they better pony up some good draft picks if they plan on unloading their bad contracts. It creates more of a scarcity in the market for salary absorption. The only other team who wants to take on salary is the Nets, so we can drive up the price of cap space.
dozencousins
Analyst
Posts: 3,031
And1: 135
Joined: Jan 11, 2007

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1553 » by dozencousins » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:18 pm

From what I heard today it is very possible that soon Koufas could be getting traded .
I don't know any direct deal or team .

I was told 2 days we were talking to the Spurs , Blazers , Rockets & Detroit were still calling about him . However that said I know nothing more & should I hear anything further I will update this unless something breaks before I can update .
I do know that the Kings are looking for a future pick or take on a contract of position of need and not for more than 2-3 seasons as also player must be a younger vet . That is what we would be looking for as of now .

Kings want to give Stein & Pappa most of the minutes at Center
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 24,085
And1: 1,084
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1554 » by SacKingZZZ » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:57 pm

I forgot about Kosta. Yeah, I could totally see teams interested in him on his deal. He's making what equates to MLE this year. I wonder if the Kings can drum up any sign and trade business with him as bait.
User avatar
KingsMilz
Sophomore
Posts: 144
And1: 23
Joined: Dec 12, 2013

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1555 » by KingsMilz » Sat Jul 1, 2017 8:17 am

I would try trade for Marcus Morris (who is on a insanely cheap deal) or Wilson Chandler to be our starting SF this year, I have no idea what we would have to give up but having a grown man sized SF who plays both ends would be good while Jackson develops behind one of them. I'm not sure that Portor is that much better than either and he will make close to 4/5 times more than both.

As a 3rd option I would look into MKG (who has been in trade rumours) so he can be our Tony Allen, although that could be troublesome if in 1-3 years Fox is our starting PG and WCS is our C cause of floor spacing.
User avatar
City of Trees
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 15,877
And1: 5,532
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: RE: Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1556 » by City of Trees » Sat Jul 1, 2017 8:27 am

KingsMilz wrote:I would try trade for Marcus Morris (who is on a insanely cheap deal) or Wilson Chandler to be our starting SF this year, I have no idea what we would have to give up but having a grown man sized SF who plays both ends would be good while Jackson develops behind one of them. I'm not sure that Portor is that much better than either and he will make close to 4/5 times more than both.

As a 3rd option I would look into MKG (who has been in trade rumours) so he can be our Tony Allen, although that could be troublesome if in 1-3 years Fox is our starting PG and WCS is our C cause of floor spacing.


Marcus Morris IMO doesn't fit the leadership qualities Kings seek.


Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
benchmobbin02
Veteran
Posts: 2,976
And1: 364
Joined: May 28, 2015
     

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1557 » by benchmobbin02 » Sat Jul 1, 2017 10:23 am

I just heard David Alridge talking about OKC having talks with us about trading Kanter to us. Didn't say for what or what kind of compensation we'd have asked for. He tied it to OKC looking to make cap room to go after Griffin. Said that it got shot down (I think referring to Blake signing an extension with the Clips.)

My puzzle piece thinking is what if the talks were actually to bring Rudy Gay to OKC in a Sign and Trade with Kanter coming here. The rumors were there that Gay had or would meet with us. He has also been linked to OKC. It's a possibility like SacKingzz said earlier,..

Opens up tons of questions...

What would our plan be at Center?

Is Kanter a piece we would keep or stretch?

What does OKC have to give that would entice u to take Kanter?

Did it fall thru because Presti was trying to fleece Vlade but we didn't go for it?

Did it even fall thru? (Could still be on under the radar...)

Do we move KK for a pick like suspected by many to clear the C logjam?

Is WCS safe?

Can we even sign and trade Rudy after he declined his player option? (if that was officially sent to the league)

Kings rumor at 1:04

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE!
jeffjtk1234
Starter
Posts: 2,242
And1: 408
Joined: Jan 01, 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
     

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1558 » by jeffjtk1234 » Sat Jul 1, 2017 3:06 pm

No thanks to Kanter


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
User avatar
City of Trees
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 15,877
And1: 5,532
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: RE: Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1559 » by City of Trees » Sat Jul 1, 2017 3:30 pm

benchmobbin02 wrote:I just heard David Alridge talking about OKC having talks with us about trading Kanter to us. Didn't say for what or what kind of compensation we'd have asked for. He tied it to OKC looking to make cap room to go after Griffin. Said that it got shot down (I think referring to Blake signing an extension with the Clips.)

My puzzle piece thinking is what if the talks were actually to bring Rudy Gay to OKC in a Sign and Trade with Kanter coming here. The rumors were there that Gay had or would meet with us. He has also been linked to OKC. It's a possibility like SacKingzz said earlier,..

Opens up tons of questions...

What would our plan be at Center?

Is Kanter a piece we would keep or stretch?

What does OKC have to give that would entice u to take Kanter?

Did it fall thru because Presti was trying to fleece Vlade but we didn't go for it?

Did it even fall thru? (Could still be on under the radar...)

Do we move KK for a pick like suspected by many to clear the C logjam?

Is WCS safe?

Can we even sign and trade Rudy after he declined his player option? (if that was officially sent to the league)

Kings rumor at 1:04


Saw on STR the rumor is OKC tried to trade Kanter to us during the draft for #10. Kings declined.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
madskillz8
Rookie
Posts: 1,042
And1: 1,205
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dallas
   

Re: 16-17 Trade Discussion Thread *Read mod note on pg. 35* 

Post#1560 » by madskillz8 » Sat Jul 1, 2017 3:47 pm

If we are talking about developing a culture and arguing that "character matters", we just cannot go after Kanter.

Return to Sacramento Kings