Eek! Trade deadline March 15th quickly approaching!

[NoBonus]

The NBA 2012 trade deadline is March 15th! With all this "Fire Geoff" stuff going on and the Kings floundering, one would assume some trades will be going down, but whom and for whom? Sounds like Chuck Hayes is finally returning to the lineup, that could make our second and third tier bigs expendible...

Anyone else a bit aprehensive about the 15th?

edit: I messed up and put the 24th, thanks for the correction, rainmaker.

 

[pshn80]

Thanks for posting the date. No, not apprehensive. Certainly curious about what Petrie will do. I'll wait until the 25th and talk about what happens if anything.

 

[rainmaker]

Deadline is March 15th.

 

[Letsgokings13]

Not expecting anything. Ive come to expect nothing, and if its anything, it will be underwhelming. Or SOMEHOW we will cut salary.

 

[Glenn]

Deadline is March 15th.

Need clarification or a little ambition to check the internet.

 

[NoBonus]

Need clarification or a little ambition to check the internet.

Fixed it. I was wrong.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Fixed it. I was wrong.

Can a mod change the thread title, as it does not reflect the accurate date?

 

[iowamcnabb]

I just don't see any trades. Hickson, jt and donte are the only trade pieces. Jt and Greene can't bring equal value in return and hickson's value has to be at an all time low.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I don't want to see any trades unless it's an IMPACT trade for a player who will improve the team immediately. There hasn't been a trade of that caliber since Williams for Bibby. No more lateral/treading water moves!

 

[Section 101]

Another thing to keep in mind. We are at the min salary now. Any trades would be for equal or more on contracts.

 

[NoBonus]

Another thing to keep in mind. We are at the min salary now. Any trades would be for equal or more on contracts.

Good point. I do think, however, the Kings might get invovled in some of those ending contract + cash deals for teams looking to clear dead contract weight in order to clear room for a player that will help them improve for the playoffs... you know stuff like:
Kings trade future 2nd rounder to Boston for Sam Cassel + more cash than the Kings have to pay Sam Cassel. Then Boston makes another trade using the cap space. The Kings cap space is a huge asset if they are willing to sell it (and they are, BTW). Would be nice to see them do more, but that is what I expect.

 

[Kings Faithful]

I don't want to see any trades unless it's an IMPACT trade for a player who will improve the team immediately. There hasn't been a trade of that caliber since Williams for Bibby. No more lateral/treading water moves!

Teams are willing to give up players that would drastically improve our team. We just have to be able to take on the salary. Maloofs said they would spend this year, well they missed their shot during the Free Agency... if they want to redeem themselves we need to pick up an impact player and not worry so much about how much we are spending on him over the next few years... and I'm not talking about another John Salmons. For the love of God...not another John Salmons.

 

[Section 101]

Good point. I do think, however, the Kings might get invovled in some of those ending contract + cash deals for teams looking to clear dead contract weight in order to clear room for a player that will help them improve for the playoffs... you know stuff like:
Kings trade future 2nd rounder to Boston for Sam Cassel + more cash than the Kings have to pay Sam Cassel. Then Boston makes another trade using the cap space. The Kings cap space is a huge asset if they are willing to sell it (and they are, BTW). Would be nice to see them do more, but that is what I expect.

Not going to happen. The only way enders do any good is if we trade Salmons or Garcia for them. And the new CBA says the max amount of cash received from all trades during the years is $3 mil. It used to be $3 mil per trade.

 

[ParniValjak]

Not expecting any major action! If anything, if we do something I expect it to be another **** deal as a continuation of our horrific off-season.

 

[rainmaker]

Teams are willing to give up players that would drastically improve our team. We just have to be able to take on the salary. Maloofs said they would spend this year, well they missed their shot during the Free Agency... if they want to redeem themselves we need to pick up an impact player and not worry so much about how much we are spending on him over the next few years... and I'm not talking about another John Salmons. For the love of God...not another John Salmons.

One of the Maloofs, think it was Joe, said during a training camp interview that they did spend, and did follow through on what they told the fans they would do. The Maloofs have a different understanding of spending than the rest of the league, apparently.

 

[Glenn]

One of the Maloofs, think it was Joe, said during a training camp interview that they did spend, and did follow through on what they told the fans they would do. The Maloofs have a different understanding of spending than the rest of the league, apparently.

Yes, and they threw out the number $67 mil which was the entire lengths of the contracts signed. This isn't the way salaries are discussed among basketball people. They are obsessed with their checbook and probably rightly so but for the team and the fans, it is nothing but bad. My interpretation when they mentioned the amount is that they had committed themselves to $67 mil THIS YEAR.

 

[Prince_XY]

One of the Maloofs, think it was Joe, said during a training camp interview that they did spend, and did follow through on what they told the fans they would do. The Maloofs have a different understanding of spending than the rest of the league, apparently.

Yes, I think they did spend. Unfortunately Petrie is still the GM and the money was spent on the wrong kind of players.

 

[Kingster]

One of the Maloofs, think it was Joe, said during a training camp interview that they did spend, and did follow through on what they told the fans they would do. The Maloofs have a different understanding of spending than the rest of the league, apparently.

That's not very encouraging...

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

One of the Maloofs, think it was Joe, said during a training camp interview that they did spend, and did follow through on what they told the fans they would do. The Maloofs have a different understanding of spending than the rest of the league, apparently.

I guess he forgot they said they had cap space and we're going to spend it ALL. I guess in Maloof speak cap space must mean the space between where you're at and the minimum salary.

 

[pshn80]

I don't expect any trade for the Kings. To get anything they would have to give up something of value like Cousins, Evans, Fredette and I don't think they will now. It's tough. They are between a rock and a hard place.

 

[NoBonus]

I guess he forgot they said they had cap space and we're going to spend it ALL. I guess in Maloof speak cap space must mean the space between where you're at and the minimum salary.

It seems like they were willing to spend on the right people (AK-47 and that one guy who went to PDX). Can't blame them entirely for existing in Sacramento. What would you have "spent" on? Dalembert?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

It seems like they were willing to spend on the right people (AK-47 and that one guy who went to PDX). Can't blame them entirely for existing in Sacramento. What would you have "spent" on? Dalembert?

I would have offered Dalembert 3 years/25-30$ million. I believe that's better than the deal he got in Houston. I think that's a bit steep for him but since he was pretty much the best big man FA option available that they had a realistic shot at signing i would have gone ahead and done it if that's what it took to wrap him up.

 

[Padrino]

I would have offered Dalembert 3 years/25-30$ million. I believe that's better than the deal he got in Houston. I think that's a bit steep for him but since he was pretty much the best big man FA option available that they had a realistic shot at signing i would have gone ahead and done it if that's what it took to wrap him up.

i would have done about the same...

i sure wish i could have gotten behind-closed-doors on that one. i would have really liked to know whether or not dalembert would have returned to sacramento for the right money, or if the maloofs closed their check book on the prospect, thus forcing petrie's hand on signing chuck hayes as a replacement. i had and still have no problem with the chuck hayes signing as an individual move on its own merit, but it certainly doesn't make up for the loss of dalembert's shotblocking length in the middle...

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

i would have done about the same...

i sure wish i could have gotten behind-closed-doors on that one. i would have really liked to know whether or not dalembert would have returned to sacramento for the right money, or if the maloofs closed their check book on the prospect, thus forcing petrie's hand on signing chuck hayes as a replacement. i had and still have no problem with the chuck hayes signing as an individual move on its own merit, but it certainly doesn't make up for the loss of dalembert's shotblocking length in the middle...

Yeah, the Hayes signing would have been awesome if it was in addition to a Dalembert signing. And they easily had enough cash to get both too. Having Dalembert and Cousins start with Hayes and JT off the bench would have been a great frontcout.