Kings active in trade talks?

[bajaden]

the ESPN pack of rats has even more know nothings than the NBA pack of rats, in particular for a little left coast berg like Sacto. Or more precisely many of them played roles in Gay's reputation rundown, so again, they aren't going to back off that until we start winning. Aside from the anonymous "sources say" you will note that the entire "returns aren't great and unlikely to resign" stuff comes as a separate editorial statement, not a "sources say that the Kings don't think early returns are great etc.." Wash in the general assumption Parker is the #1, and voila.

To begin with, I think Parker has a very good chance to be the first pick in the draft, so the likely hood of us drafting him are somewhere between slim, and none. However, miracles are known to happen, and if perchance, we were to end up with Parker, I could see the Kings letting Gay walk. Why? Well, just about everyone, including myself thinks that Parker is going to be a can't miss star in the league. If you just go back and look at the college careers of players like Durant, and Melo, Parkers career so far is equal to, or exceeds them. So, if you go on the assumption that Parker is going to be a star, and more of a team first type player as well, and you already have Gay, who plays the same postion, which one do you choose? There's simply not enough minutes for both guys. Gay, if resigned is going to want somewhere between 14 and 16 million a year. At least that's my guess. On the other hand, you can sign Parker to a rookie contract for 4 years at somewhere around 4.5/5.5 million per year average. Logic tells you to go with Parker.

Now that's all based on the assumption that Parker will be as good if not a better player than Gay. He'll be younger, and cheaper at least for a while. So if were lucky enough to be in position to draft Parker, I can see the Kings grabbing him and not offering Gay and extension.

 

[bajaden]

ESPN: Amen to that.

Simmons: He seems to rip the Kings every chance he gets, and he's positive that we're tanking, while I'm not so sure. On the other hand, he's going to have Cousins on a podcast coming out soon (Cousins agreed via twitter), so that should be an interesting conversation.

Simmons is a big Celtics fan, and he would love to have Cousins on the Celt's. Therefore, he loves Cuz!

 

[TheBadGuy]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/chicag...signaling-full-rebuilding-224800179--nba.html

Now that the Bulls have waived Bynum and traded Deng ,can the Kings somehow make a move to get Noah or Gibson or Hinrich? With Rose out and Deng traded they will likely need a scorer.

 

[Kingsfan23]

ESPN: Amen to that.

Simmons: He seems to rip the Kings every chance he gets, and he's positive that we're tanking, while I'm not so sure. On the other hand, he's going to have Cousins on a podcast coming out soon (Cousins agreed via twitter), so that should be an interesting conversation.

Simmons was wearing a kings jersey last videos with jalen rose, doubt he dislikes

 

[Big Cuz 15]

To begin with, I think Parker has a very good chance to be the first pick in the draft, so the likely hood of us drafting him are somewhere between slim, and none. However, miracles are known to happen, and if perchance, we were to end up with Parker, I could see the Kings letting Gay walk. Why? Well, just about everyone, including myself thinks that Parker is going to be a can't miss star in the league. If you just go back and look at the college careers of players like Durant, and Melo, Parkers career so far is equal to, or exceeds them. So, if you go on the assumption that Parker is going to be a star, and more of a team first type player as well, and you already have Gay, who plays the same postion, which one do you choose? There's simply not enough minutes for both guys. Gay, if resigned is going to want somewhere between 14 and 16 million a year. At least that's my guess. On the other hand, you can sign Parker to a rookie contract for 4 years at somewhere around 4.5/5.5 million per year average. Logic tells you to go with Parker.

Now that's all based on the assumption that Parker will be as good if not a better player than Gay. He'll be younger, and cheaper at least for a while. So if were lucky enough to be in position to draft Parker, I can see the Kings grabbing him and not offering Gay and extension.

parker or wiggins at no 1?

 

[bajaden]

parker or wiggins at no 1?

Well its all in the eye of the beholder, and their needs. If you have the first pick, and your in desperate need of a big man, it would be hard to pass on Embiid. But if you need a SF, and you need someone that can come in and help right now, then you take Parker. If you need a SF, but your looking for the overall best player down the road, then perhaps you take Wiggins. My guess is that one of those three will be the first pick in the draft. There's also a slight chance that Exum could slide into that group. Especially if he blows people away at the pre-draft workouts. Some scouts are comparing him to Penny Hardaway. Personally I would take either Embiid or Parker first. Two weeks ago, I had Embiid first. Now I have Parker first. Why? Embiid's hands bother me. I think he'll still be a very good player regardless, but he'll never be a great player if his hands aren't better than they've been the last few games.

 

[KingMilz]

We should try package Mclemore with Thornton to try get Fournier (has way more talent than Ben) and a couple other pieces from Denver. Fournier can defend well and he can ran the point he's a smooth Manu Ginobili (not as good obviously) and has a good ceiling and is a VERY HIGH IQ player. He would be a sweet piece to have as a SG imo to balance out the Gay/Cuz/IT combo.

 

[sdballer]

We should try package Mclemore with Thornton to try get Fournier (has way more talent than Ben) and a couple other pieces from Denver. Fournier can defend well and he can ran the point he's a smooth Manu Ginobili (not as good obviously) and has a good ceiling and is a VERY HIGH IQ player. He would be a sweet piece to have as a SG imo to balance out the Gay/Cuz/IT combo.

I'd rather have BMac. Fournier might turn into a good player but right now he's still struggling and probably doesn't have Mac's upside.

Neither is tearing it up but I just prefer Mac's physical skills. I do like Fournier as a prospect, but wouldn't swap the two.

 

[Gary]

Well its all in the eye of the beholder, and their needs. If you have the first pick, and your in desperate need of a big man, it would be hard to pass on Embiid. But if you need a SF, and you need someone that can come in and help right now, then you take Parker. If you need a SF, but your looking for the overall best player down the road, then perhaps you take Wiggins. My guess is that one of those three will be the first pick in the draft. There's also a slight chance that Exum could slide into that group. Especially if he blows people away at the pre-draft workouts. Some scouts are comparing him to Penny Hardaway. Personally I would take either Embiid or Parker first. Two weeks ago, I had Embiid first. Now I have Parker first. Why? Embiid's hands bother me. I think he'll still be a very good player regardless, but he'll never be a great player if his hands aren't better than they've been the last few games.

I still think Wiggins will be #1. Happens every year, you will see the #1 team needing to fill a specific position, and the position they need happens to have a player in the top 2 or 3.

I see a lot discussions about why a team would buck the trend and pick a positional need and just go with the consensus #1 even if they don't need to fill that position. Usually turns out they pick the consensus #1 anyway.

Basically trying to say that Wiggins will still be #1 when draft time rolls around.

 

[KingMilz]

I'd rather have BMac. Fournier might turn into a good player but right now he's still struggling and probably doesn't have Mac's upside.

Neither is tearing it up but I just prefer Mac's physical skills. I do like Fournier as a prospect, but wouldn't swap the two.

One's struggling cause of a lack of playing time the other is struggling cause he flat out sucks, difference when Evan is on the floor he does not look completely overmatched on both ends and literally everything you said about Mac you could have said about T-Rob. Fournier trashed the Thunder today when he got a solid chunk of time.

 

[Gilles]

Well, seems like both Wiggins and Parker are struggling quite a bit as schedule strengthened. Will have to see how they respond.
I'm sure Nuggets saw, how Fournier trashed Thunder as well. Why would they trade?

 

[sdballer]

One's struggling cause of a lack of playing time the other is struggling cause he flat out sucks, difference when Evan is on the floor he does not look completely overmatched on both ends and literally everything you said about Mac you could have said about T-Rob. Fournier trashed the Thunder today when he got a solid chunk of time.

Fournier is getting blocked for playing time by Randy Foye. Not exactly like he has a star in front of him. He's shooting a poor percentage, turns it over at a decent rate, fouls too much, etc. He had a good time tonight, though a lot of it in 17 minutes of garbage time.

Again, I think he has potential and wouldn't mind him on our team to develop but it's silly to act like he's playing at such a higher level. Check out their per 36 numbers for a better comparison.

 

[JLoss22]

I was just playing the Draft Lottery machine on ESPN and I was landing Parker or Embiid. It was awesome. Made me think though, this draft coming up is crucial for us, we need to land someone who can compete at a high level year 1. I know we aren't used to that but we need it.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Embiid's hands bother me. I think he'll still be a very good player regardless, but he'll never be a great player if his hands aren't better than they've been the last few games.

Odd, most scouting reports on Embiid indicate that he has pretty good hands. On the few occasions I've seen him, I haven't noticed anything to the contrary. I wonder if he just had a bad game two?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

One's struggling cause of a lack of playing time the other is struggling cause he flat out sucks,

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have little idea what your talking about. Sounds like you have an agenda to me. McLemore certainly has struggled, as many rookies do, but stating that he sucks is utterly ridiculous. The player your touting isn't performing any better, despite having more experience in the league.

 

[KingMilz]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have little idea what your talking about. Sounds like you have an agenda to me. McLemore certainly has struggled, as many rookies do, but stating that he sucks is utterly ridiculous. The player your touting isn't performing any better, despite having more experience in the league.

He's got more natural skills such as IQ, ball handling,playing making, body control, euro steps and a lot of other things Ben will never have, Ben just jumps higher and stats can't really explain that. I just bored of watching our cross of Jodie Meeks and Thomas Robinson every game.

I much rather us try develop Derrick Williams than Mclemore at this point

 

[sdballer]

He's got more natural skills such as IQ, ball handling, body control, euro steps and a lot of other things Ben will never have, Ben just jumps higher and stats can't really explain that. I just bored of watching our cross of Jodie Meeks and Thomas Robinson every game.

You're right that Fournier has more developed skills right now which is kind of the point. Even with their current differences in skill sets, Ben is still putting up similar stats. Ben has better physical skills and if he develops even part of the game to compliment his physical abilities, he has a higher ceiling. Not being demonstrated now, but if I'm trading Ben it's either as part of a package for an established star or for a prospect with more upside.

 

[dude12]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have little idea what your talking about. Sounds like you have an agenda to me. McLemore certainly has struggled, as many rookies do, but stating that he sucks is utterly ridiculous. The player your touting isn't performing any better, despite having more experience in the league.

He does have an agenda. Ever since the Spurs game when people came unglued on Ben, he's been banging the drum to dump Ben. And there is nothing wrong with that but it's just really early in the kids career where the kid is getting force fed minutes and learning on the fly. And I agree with you that it is ridiculous that every SG with a pulse is someone we should replace Ben with. If we are going to trade the kid, I'd like to get a SG who is already tested and proven...not another prospect. And better yet, lets wait and seeif the kid develops.....kid works his ass off, is paired next to a defensive liability, doesn't get a lot of touches.....which is ok right now.....lets see what he does next year.

 

[Kingster]

Unlike you, I've always liked Miller. I would have liked to have had him 5 or 6 years ago. And yes, while he's not the best defender in the league at his position, he is a crafty defender and knows how to play team defense. As to the reason for pursuing Miller, well like everyone else, I have my opinion, but also like everyone else, I'm not capable of the Vulcan mind meld. So I can't speak with complete accuracy. However, they did pursue Calderon, and did acquire Vasquez. They've apparently spoken with the Celtics, along with everyone else, about Rondo, so it appears to my aging and withered mind, that they're looking to add a pass first PG, and I doubt its to come off the bench. I also doubt it has anything to do with Jimmer, other than perhaps he's part of the trade. I agree with Funky, that having a pass first PG on the floor with Cousins and Gay is their objective. It might also benefit either Thornton or McLemore, whomever of the two is starting.

I'd like to have Miller about 7 years ago, just so you know. You'd like him 5 or 6 years ago. So that doesn't sound to me like overwhelming support for Miller today.

My speculation is that it could easily be that they see a twofer: Jimmer ain't cutting it at the backup so you get a vet ballhandler that is servicable to give IT a breather and who can pass the ball. Again, we all agree: If they bring him in here, it's not for defense.

It is interesting to me that with all the talk by Malone that scoring is not the problem and that defense is the problem - and you hear that repeatedly - that a no-D Miller would be the guy they bring in. On it's face, it's a huge non sequiter: We need to step it up on D; guys have to get better on D; we can't win until we play D. Now let's go out and get Miller. Hugh?

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

I think Rainmaker mentioned this somewhere, but I'd prefer Heinrich over Miller at this point. I'm assuming the price would be higher, though.

But if we made a play for Noah, Kirk would be a good little sweetener.

 

[Kingster]

I think Rainmaker mentioned this somewhere, but I'd prefer Heinrich over Miller at this point. I'm assuming the price would be higher, though.

But if we made a play for Noah, Kirk would be a good little sweetener.

Both Heinrich and Noah would make abundant sense.

 

[Padrino]

I'd like to have Miller about 7 years ago, just so you know. You'd like him 5 or 6 years ago. So that doesn't sound to me like overwhelming support for Miller today.

My speculation is that it could easily be that they see a twofer: Jimmer ain't cutting it at the backup so you get a vet ballhandler that is servicable to give IT a breather and who can pass the ball. Again, we all agree: If they bring him in here, it's not for defense.

It is interesting to me that with all the talk by Malone that scoring is not the problem and that defense is the problem - and you hear that repeatedly - that a no-D Miller would be the guy they bring in. On it's face, it's a huge non sequiter: We need to step it up on D; guys have to get better on D; we can't win until we play D. Now let's go out and get Miller. Hugh?

to throw another perspective into the mix, i'm not sure that the new regime is necessarily as concerned as we are with whether or not andre miller would become a starter in sacramento. i think the kings are mostly looking to add true veteran presence to their locker room. isaiah thomas is 24. demarcus cousins is 23. they're still figuring out how to be team leaders in the nba. it's a tall order, to be that young and to own the responsibility of calling "players only" meetings, to try and hold one's teammates accountable. then there's ben mclemore, who's only 20 years old, and who's still trying to figure out... well, how to do just about everything in the nba. he's almost entirely a non-factor for the kings right now, despite being an asset with future potential...

elsewhere, rudy gay is 27, but he's a relatively quiet, unassuming presence. jason thompson is also 27, but he has a tendency toward childish complaining on the court. at 29, travis outlaw and aaron gray are the oldest guys on the kings. in general, this is just a young team without the right kind of veteran mentoring in the locker room. and, regardless of where they actually end up picking in the draft, the kings will likely be adding yet another very young talent that figures to become a contributor. but most up-and-coming teams have at least a couple of rotation players who are 30+ to offset their youth, veterans who can have enough impact on the court to also have enough credibility in the locker room...

now, miller's ability to provide that right kind of veteran mentoring is certainly up for debate, but the kings have been at a distinct lack for such players across the last several seasons. i think PDA is attempting to correct that. it's also worth noting that michael malone is one of the youngest head coaches in the nba, and this is his very first season in the big job. he could really use some veteran help and veteran leadership in that locker room...

 

[ninjabiscuit]

Simmons was wearing a kings jersey last videos with jalen rose, doubt he dislikes

They both like Cousins specifically, in part because of all of the drama around him, plus (obviously) his stats. I read almost everything he writes about basketball, and he takes shots at the Kings constantly. His perspective is simply that when the Kings have good players, those players should be moved to a better team. Works for him (and ESPN in general), because he doesn't care about the Kings as a team, or their fans...he just wants the good players to be moved to a team that he's already watching.

I can understand his thought process, as someone who is trying to entertain as many readers/viewers/listeners as possible, but the Kings just aren't a big enough story for him (or ESPN). It's all about increasing the number of viewers and clicks...everything else is secondary. Boogie is a beast, and a technical foul magnet, from their perspective. That's a story. The rest of the team, not so much.

Watch the beginning of this video to see what I mean.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-t...-jalens-nba-recap-the-second-birdmester-day-2

 

[macadocious]

I would really like to see a trade like this around the deadline.

We offer then a decent big in Thompson, and expiring contract in Jimmer and assuming at the trade deadline we are still in the 5-7 range for pick we remove our hold on the pick. Maybe we bump up to the 8-9 pick at best. This way we get a player and position we desperately need, add a veteran and aren't throwing another 19-21 year old in their with Boogie and whomever were retain from this group.

This give Chicago a replacement big (sorta) and cuts about $6MM a year in salary they also get the most benefit out of the 1st round pick they traded for.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Odd, most scouting reports on Embiid indicate that he has pretty good hands. On the few occasions I've seen him, I haven't noticed anything to the contrary. I wonder if he just had a bad game two?

No, his hands definitely aren't good. He fumbles passes and rebounds far too much for my liking. I like everything else about him, but his hands are going to put a cap on his potential.

 

[Kingster]

to throw another perspective into the mix, i'm not sure that the new regime is necessarily as concerned as we are with whether or not andre miller would become a starter in sacramento. i think the kings are mostly looking to add true veteran presence to their locker room. isaiah thomas is 24. demarcus cousins is 23. they're still figuring out how to be team leaders in the nba. it's a tall order, to be that young and to own the responsibility of calling "players only" meetings, to try and hold one's teammates accountable. then there's ben mclemore, who's only 20 years old, and who's still trying to figure out... well, how to do just about everything in the nba. he's almost entirely a non-factor for the kings right now, despite being an asset with future potential...

now, miller's ability to provide that right kind of veteran mentoring is certainly up for debate, but the kings have been at a distinct lack for such players across the last several seasons. i think PDA is attempting to correct that. it's also worth noting that michael malone is one of the youngest head coaches in the nba, and this is his very first season in the big job. he could really use some veteran help and veteran leadership in that locker room...

Yes, the Kings could use additional veteran mentoring, and yes, it is debatable whether Miller is the type of veteran they are looking to get. It sure gives me some doubt about his ability to strengthen the Kings culture when he's on the bench yelling at the Denver head coach. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that if he put his mind to it he could mentor IT, Jimmer, McCallum and whatever other young guard the Kings would bring in. He's one of the higher BBIQ guys in the league.

 

[fanop]

I'm not sure how they can say the early returns aren't great. Gay is scoring the most points per game of his career on the fewest shots per game (excluding his freshman season with more limited minutes). He's shooting .508, the first time in his career he has been over .500 (and he has rarely come close), and his TS% is also the highest of his career. He's getting to the line a bit more than he ever did and shooting well above his career average there. All of his other numbers are pretty much in line with his career, though his defensive rebounding, 3PT%, and TOs are a bit worse. Still, he has only been with the team for 1/3 of the season, and he's already #3 on total win shares on the team.

What is this "not great"? I don't get it.

That said, I wouldn't draft Smart at #1 in this draft, and I haven't seen Exum so I can't comment. But having seen Parker, having seen Embiid, having seen Randle (not the best fit next to Cousins, but still), and knowing the book on Wiggins (haven't really seen much out of him so far) - those guys are the guys you look at with the #1 overall. Smart is a tier down in my book, and I wouldn't be surprised to put Exum in the next tier as well had I seen him. At #5, Smart and Exum are in play. But not at #1.

If the Kings had the #1 pick, it would be hard to draft.. I honestly don't want Parker since we have Gay now. Parker plays no defense, and that really hurts his game. I think Wiggins might be worth it, but the kings do need a pg. If not from the draft, I'm not sure where they could get one from. If we did get the 1st overall pick, I'd trade back with teams who have two 1st round picks, or if they aren't high enough, I'd trade back for a 5-10 this year and a 1st round pick next year. I don't think we need the 1st pick imo.

 

[fanop]

To begin with, I think Parker has a very good chance to be the first pick in the draft, so the likely hood of us drafting him are somewhere between slim, and none. However, miracles are known to happen, and if perchance, we were to end up with Parker, I could see the Kings letting Gay walk. Why? Well, just about everyone, including myself thinks that Parker is going to be a can't miss star in the league. If you just go back and look at the college careers of players like Durant, and Melo, Parkers career so far is equal to, or exceeds them. So, if you go on the assumption that Parker is going to be a star, and more of a team first type player as well, and you already have Gay, who plays the same postion, which one do you choose? There's simply not enough minutes for both guys. Gay, if resigned is going to want somewhere between 14 and 16 million a year. At least that's my guess. On the other hand, you can sign Parker to a rookie contract for 4 years at somewhere around 4.5/5.5 million per year average. Logic tells you to go with Parker.

Now that's all based on the assumption that Parker will be as good if not a better player than Gay. He'll be younger, and cheaper at least for a while. So if were lucky enough to be in position to draft Parker, I can see the Kings grabbing him and not offering Gay and extension.

If we didn't have the 1st, pick I honestly wouldn't want a miracle to happen where Parker falls into our lap.. We've been there before.. Thomas Robinson? Ben Mclemore? Defense is the team's biggest problem, I think Parker would just stack it up even more. He's a liability on defense which is a major concern on the kings because our only decent defender is Gay. You might be able to add Cousins to that list.

 

[Chubbs]

He's got more natural skills such as IQ, ball handling,playing making, body control, euro steps and a lot of other things Ben will never have, Ben just jumps higher and stats can't really explain that. I just bored of watching our cross of Jodie Meeks and Thomas Robinson every game.

I much rather us try develop Derrick Williams than Mclemore at this point

You just keep digging that hole in your comments on McLemore. I don't get it really.

It's just too early. Dump him already for junk like Fournier? No way.

Williams on the other hand, already fizzled out in Minny. Personally, I don't see the potential there that Ben still has. William's effort is inconsistent. I don't have that worry with Ben. And two years from now, I'll be surprised if Ben is still struggling like Williams has his whole career to this point.

 

[sdballer]

You just keep digging that hole in your comments on McLemore. I don't get it really.

It's just too early. Dump him already for junk like Fournier? No way.

Williams on the other hand, already fizzled out in Minny. Personally, I don't see the potential there that Ben still has. William's effort is inconsistent. I don't have that worry with Ben. And two years from now, I'll be surprised if Ben is still struggling like Williams has his whole career to this point.

Yeah, honestly I don't get the Williams love. He hasn't defended well. He's an inconsistent rebounder. He can't create for himself. His outside shooting is shaky. His upside to me is as a high energy, athletic bench tweener. He has uses but I don't know that he's ever going to even get close to his draft position.