Frank the Tank!

#3
27 yo so hes not too old, not as young as other names we threw around but its not horrible to get big men depth if its a short cheap contract
 
#5
For one year and probably close to the minimum, I can't complain too much. But like Whiteside, what's the point? Maybe he has some upside as a trade chip for a 2nd rounder. Or the team can just straight up sign undrafted young talent.
 
#10
I remember Baja really liked Kaminsky back in college.

He's solid, the type of player who could have a career year with enough minutes, and again could easily be a nice add-on in a Buddy trade for a team looking to make a push.

What I like about these one-year acquisitions, is that you really don't have to squint very hard to see a scenario in which they could be good trade bait, or at the very least, easy to include in any deals with little downside for our trading partner.
 
#11
I remember Baja really liked Kaminsky back in college.

He's solid, the type of player who could have a career year with enough minutes, and again could easily be a nice add-on in a Buddy trade for a team looking to make a push.

What I like about these one-year acquisitions, is that you really don't have to squint very hard to see a scenario in which they could be good trade bait, or at the very least, easy to include in any deals with little downside for our trading partner.
Well I think something is coming down the line at any rate. Kaminsky and Whiteside may not be all that wanted, but they're certainly not fringe NBA players who get cut after training camp and probably got some form of promise for playing time. Seems unlikely we're heading into the year with 5 bigs+Barnes and Woodard small-ball 4.

But have always loved Kaminsky and he's been a dude that can put up some serious offensive numbers when given the opportunity. Theoretically exactly the type of offensive C you want next to Bagley. Only a slight issue that neither can defend a traffic cone.
 
#24
how many centers do we need? is Holmes going somewhere?
Only having his early bird rights could hurt us when it comes time to resign him. I think the most we can offer him is about $10/million a year if we're over the cap. (I'm not sure what our cap looks like next year.) If he has a good season i could see us being priced out of that. It might be better to trade him at the deadline.
 
#25
Only having his early bird rights could hurt us when it comes time to resign him. I think the most we can offer him is about $10/million a year if we're over the cap. (I'm not sure what our cap looks like next year.) If he has a good season i could see us being priced out of that. It might be better to trade him at the deadline.
right or wrong these types of bigs seem to have trouble getting paid (Montrez Harell got 9.5 per) , so 10 per season might be good enough. I can see a trade but in a package with someone...
 
#26
Only having his early bird rights could hurt us when it comes time to resign him. I think the most we can offer him is about $10/million a year if we're over the cap. (I'm not sure what our cap looks like next year.) If he has a good season i could see us being priced out of that. It might be better to trade him at the deadline.
We were about 5-6 million under I think after letting Bogi go, not sure if that included the cap hold for our picks. We have a lot of expiring deals though, so we can sign Holmes if there is still mutual interest. These one year deals are all about maintaining roster flexibility and scooping up the best available talent after the FA bonanza cooled off.
 
#28
I can see signing Whiteside. He was cheap and he can give us something that we’ll be otherwise lacking against some teams. But Kaminski, too? Well, he may be the only King over 6’8 who can hit the 3. So there’s that. But I wonder if Monte believes that Bagley is not Center material? And I wonder if Monte sees Barnes as a small forward or a power forward?
 
#30
I can see signing Whiteside. He was cheap and he can give us something that we’ll be otherwise lacking against some teams. But Kaminski, too? Well, he may be the only King over 6’8 who can hit the 3. So there’s that. But I wonder if Monte believes that Bagley is not Center material? And I wonder if Monte sees Barnes as a small forward or a power forward?
I get the impression McNair does not see Bagley as a 5. I honestly don't think Walton does either. 5 was just the easiest place to slot him in because the team didn't have the patience to develop him properly while they chased that 8th seed. Walton even hinted at that.