Trade Bagley?

A

ARockmon

Prospect
#181
#181
I haven’t seen Bey play (or haven’t paid attention), but I think Bagley has much more value than that. Bey is listed as 6’7”, 216 lbs, while Bagley is 6’ 11”, 235 lbs. as Dick Matta said, always go for size. Maybe the game has changed though.

I would keep Bagley if it were my decision, but I can understand wanting to trade him.
It kinda reminds me of when we (the King’s) wanted to get rid of Pervis Ellison. They traded him for Bobby Hansen, Eric Leckner, and a 2nd round pick that turned out to be Anthony Bonner. I think that was a pretty good trade for the Kings under the circumstances.

Oh yeah, and remember when we traded Jim Peterson for Ralph Sampson (who could hardly play or run anymore)? That was pretty dumb. I still love the King’s though.
 
iowamcnabb

iowamcnabb

Hall of Famer
#187
#187
Iced Espresso said:
Ham said we were looking for a first....

Don't like our chances.

https://twitter.com/statuses/1374141675837227010

Derrick Williams didn't return much, just a former #2 that got moved early in his career.
Click to expand...
I mentioned this in another thread but doesn’t Houston’s late first and Exum for Bagley make some sense? Monte has made it clear he doesn’t see Marvin as part of the core and Houston is in position to take risks for talent since they have a sudden surplus of picks. Wood and Bagley could be a good front court duo.
 
Iced Espresso

Iced Espresso

Starter
#188
#188
iowamcnabb said:
I mentioned this in another thread but doesn’t Houston’s late first and Exum for Bagley make some sense? Monte has made it clear he doesn’t see Marvin as part of the core and Houston is in position to take risks for talent since they have a sudden surplus of picks. Wood and Bagley could be a good front court duo.
Click to expand...
OKC?

They've got some extra firsts..

But Hill would likely have to come back and they can get value for him.

For Miller & Jackson?

Bet they ask for Woodard in return in that scenario. Man it's going to be tough to get a first for him.
 
T

Turgenev

Starter
#189
#189
iowamcnabb said:
I mentioned this in another thread but doesn’t Houston’s late first and Exum for Bagley make some sense? Monte has made it clear he doesn’t see Marvin as part of the core and Houston is in position to take risks for talent since they have a sudden surplus of picks. Wood and Bagley could be a good front court duo.
Click to expand...
As an Australian who supports most Australian players, I should have some enthusiasm for Dante Exum. But I don't. He hasn't done anything in however many years pro and I'm not sure he did anything before that.

If I (try) to put aside my support for MBIII as a King, I do not think a late first is good enough return. Sure, MBIII'S value has dropped since being drafted. But, for me, a return of a late first would reflect poorly on both MBIII and the Kings.
 
Iced Espresso

Iced Espresso

Starter
#190
#190
Turgenev said:
As an Australian who supports most Australian players, I should have some enthusiasm for Dante Exum. But I don't. He hasn't done anything in however many years pro and I'm not sure he did anything before that.

If I (try) to put aside my support for MBIII as a King, I do not think a late first is good enough return. Sure, MBIII'S value has dropped since being drafted. But, for me, a return of a late first would reflect poorly on both MBIII and the Kings.
Click to expand...
Ok if he looks same old do you give him a 15 million qualifying offer?
 
J

jiimbob

Starter
#191
#191
iowamcnabb said:
I mentioned this in another thread but doesn’t Houston’s late first and Exum for Bagley make some sense? Monte has made it clear he doesn’t see Marvin as part of the core and Houston is in position to take risks for talent since they have a sudden surplus of picks. Wood and Bagley could be a good front court duo.
Click to expand...
I now see Houston has 3 first round picks this draft. That late pick is currently sitting at 22 so it should be a niece piece or a possible trading up piece with our own pick. Apparently there’s no question Monte is ready to move on from Bagley so that might be as good as it gets. Wish I was higher on Dante though living in Australia and all.
 
iowamcnabb

iowamcnabb

Hall of Famer
#192
#192
Iced Espresso said:
OKC?

They've got some extra firsts..

But Hill would likely have to come back and they can get value for him.

For Miller & Jackson?

Bet they ask for Woodard in return in that scenario. Man it's going to be tough to get a first for him.
Click to expand...
yeh I forgot they trade picks to Okc. I suppose you could take a ‘22 first rounder when they have the extra pick from the Nets
 
iowamcnabb

iowamcnabb

Hall of Famer
#193
#193
Turgenev said:
As an Australian who supports most Australian players, I should have some enthusiasm for Dante Exum. But I don't. He hasn't done anything in however many years pro and I'm not sure he did anything before that.

If I (try) to put aside my support for MBIII as a King, I do not think a late first is good enough return. Sure, MBIII'S value has dropped since being drafted. But, for me, a return of a late first would reflect poorly on both MBIII and the Kings.
Click to expand...
yeh I’m not high on him either, I had him included as salary filler since he has an expiring contract
 
iowamcnabb

iowamcnabb

Hall of Famer
#194
#194
jiimbob said:
I now see Houston has 3 first round picks this draft. That late pick is currently sitting at 22 so it should be a niece piece or a possible trading up piece with our own pick. Apparently there’s no question Monte is ready to move on from Bagley so that might be as good as it gets. Wish I was higher on Dante though living in Australia and all.
Click to expand...
looks like I was mistake and Houston doesn’t have those extra picks as they convey to I think OkC.
 
Iced Espresso

Iced Espresso

Starter
#196
#196
Well he's going to be out awhile now.

$11,312,114 next year, that's a net negative contract.

Then if you want to keep his RFA you have to guarantee the following season for $14.7 million?

Like if you were a rival GM would you even take that for free?
 
E

ESP47

All-Star
#197
#197
Iced Espresso said:
Well he's going to be out awhile now.

$11,312,114 next year, that's a net negative contract.

Then if you want to keep his RFA you have to guarantee the following season for $14.7 million?

Like if you were a rival GM would you even take that for free?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. Huge net negative. A team might as well just pay John Collins who is already at Bagley's ceiling.
 
Iced Espresso

Iced Espresso

Starter
#199
#199
ESP47 said:
I wouldn't. Huge net negative. A team might as well just pay John Collins who is already at Bagley's ceiling.
Click to expand...
I think we're stuck with him unless we take back bad salary next season. That I could get minor draft incentive for that exchange.

The most dangerous thing we could do is hold on to him and be fooled into the qualifying offer later.
 
2

206Fan

All-Star
#204
#204
Bagley is a near-bust with poor trade value. I am not shocked seeing his lack of progression through 3 years. He has to be one of our lowest IQ players.. and that's sayin something from a team that previously housed Ben McLemore and Thomas Robinson. He needs a change of scenery. I don't think he'll ever put it together in Sacramento.

Don't really care too much for Bey. He's a rookie who's the same age as Bagley. Averaging 10.5ppg 4.1rpg 1.2apg on 40.4/38.6/87.8. Not that much to write about.

If one of the LEAST talented teams in the entire league isn't willing to give up a rookie who averages 10ppg for Bagley, then I think that tells you all you need to know about him. Daily reminder, Vlade Divac is one of the worst GMs in history.
 
Reverend

Reverend

Bench
#206
#206
MizzouKing said:
I say keep Marvin, its early still. Our own Whiteside reminds us what can happen with a gifted player, once maturity brings a better attitude and work ethic. A lot of good changes can happen with time, and if they don't well his value has nowhere to go but up.
Click to expand...
I totally get the comparison and I agree there are some similarities there but MB3’s family continuing to campaign for him to leave the team to me makes him a must move at some point or another. The same way Buddy came out and ridiculed Sacramento’s ability to lure quality players here, he still remains a must move (his contract just complicated this). Having players like Fox and Halliburton who come out and praise our team and our city and embrace the uphill climb makes me want to surround them with more positive, like minded players. Especially when a player is a net negative like Bags or Buddy, if you don’t want to be here we don’t want you here either...simple as that
 
J

jiimbob

Starter
#207
#207
Reverend said:
I totally get the comparison and I agree there are some similarities there but MB3’s family continuing to campaign for him to leave the team to me makes him a must move at some point or another. The same way Buddy came out and ridiculed Sacramento’s ability to lure quality players here, he still remains a must move (his contract just complicated this). Having players like Fox and Halliburton who come out and praise our team and our city and embrace the uphill climb makes me want to surround them with more positive, like minded players. Especially when a player is a net negative like Bags or Buddy, if you don’t want to be here we don’t want you here either...simple as that
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree. Fox, Haliburton, Holmes, Barnes, they all bring positive skills and attributes to this team. I don’t even want to entertain trade scenarios for the latter two.
I’d be more than happy at this point to move on from the dramas of Buddy, Bagley, Bejelica, and even get a fresh start with a new coach. The return is seeming less important, just clean the house which I feel Monte will do.
 
itzcoatl

itzcoatl

Bench
#208
#208
MizzouKing said:
I say keep Marvin, its early still. Our own Whiteside reminds us what can happen with a gifted player, once maturity brings a better attitude and work ethic. A lot of good changes can happen with time, and if they don't well his value has nowhere to go but up.
Click to expand...
I think this line of thought is normally applicable with young players on rookie contracts. The problem is that Bagley was taken #2, and is owed nearly 9 million for next year, and will have a qualifying offer of nearly 15 million. If he was getting paid less, we could probably afford to be more patient, but he's getting paid a substantial amount and is going to demand probably more than that for his post-rookie contract.

edit for accuracy. https://www.spotrac.com/nba/sacramento-kings/marvin-bagley-iii-26968/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.