CLE/SAC Trade

Your Thoughts?

  • CLE/SAC both say Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • CLE/SAC both say No

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • CLE says Yes/SAC says No

    Votes: 18 62.1%
  • CLE says No/SAC says Yes

    Votes: 5 17.2%

  • Total voters
    29
#1
Did this trade on https://tradenba.com/trade-machine.

Cavaliers Receive
+3 players ($28.7m), +2 pick,
Cap Impact - $2.5M

  • Nemanja Bjelica
    PF, 6' 10", 1.13 PIPM
    $7.1M
    1yr


  • Cory Joseph
    PG, 6' 3", -0.09 PIPM
    $12.6M
    2yrs


  • Marvin Bagley III
    PF, 6' 11", -2 PIPM
    $8.9M
    2yrs

  • 2021 - Round 2
    via Memphis



  • 2021 - Round 2
    via L.A. Lakers
Kings Receive
+1 player ($31.3m) +1 pick,
Cap Impact + $2.5M

  • Kevin Love
    PF, 6' 8", -0.04 PIPM
    $31.2M
    3yrs


  • 2021 - Round 1 Unprotected
 
#3
Yeh I don’t think this trade happens but you would have to at least think about it. However, our cap sheet would look pretty messy next year with Fox, Love, Buddy and Barnes making around 100 mil. Even if we traded Barnes in a separate deal that’s a lot of committed cash.

The other angle is what does the FO think of Marvin? If they don’t project him to be part of the core they need to explore trading options. I’m in the camp that believes he will find his way in the league with a different franchise. I’m more inclined to hold on to him, develop and trade further down the line. Monte has some tough decisions to make
 
#4
I’d be curious if this trade improves Cleveland this year, because as of now they are sitting on the 5th projected pick in a good draft. With our own high pick it would make for an interesting lottery.
 
Last edited:
#7
So if we are Cavs fans instead of kings fans the forum would be willing to give up a top ten pick in 2021 for cap space/flexibility?

or put it another way. If we are back to being kings fans and Nemanja has 2 years and 60 million left on his deal, are you trading him and our 21 first rounder for cap space and filler?

The Warriors took on Wiggins who was considered to have one of the worst contracts in the Nba AND gave up an all star for a top ten pick. Wiggins has has an ok year but was considered salary filler at the time.
 
Last edited:
#8
I don't think there's any way Cleveland deals an unprotected pick for Marvin and cap space. Top 5 protected this year and unprotected next year? Maybe.

But yes, depending on McNair's view of Bagley this is the kind of deal bad teams need to make - taking on bloated contracts for draft capital and/or young players with potential.

Coming out of this draft with a pair like Mobley & Barnes or Cade & Kuminga or even Jalen Green & Jalen Johnson (those were the first 3 results I got at Tankathon) could change the course of the Kings franchise.

That said, I think the Cavs immediately say no.
 
#9
Cavs will have to pay to get rid of Love. It would need to involve Hield for the salaries to work. I don't see a fit for either team, because the Cavs wont give up this year's first and they really don't have anything else beyond trading Allen, Okoro, or Sexland. The Kings obviously would only do it if they were renting cap space.
 
#10
I don't think there's any way Cleveland deals an unprotected pick for Marvin and cap space. Top 5 protected this year and unprotected next year? Maybe.

But yes, depending on McNair's view of Bagley this is the kind of deal bad teams need to make - taking on bloated contracts for draft capital and/or young players with potential.

Coming out of this draft with a pair like Mobley & Barnes or Cade & Kuminga or even Jalen Green & Jalen Johnson (those were the first 3 results I got at Tankathon) could change the course of the Kings franchise.

That said, I think the Cavs immediately say no.
I actually think Cleveland is a place Bagley could thrive. Him next to Allen could be a really good front court duo.
 
#11
I actually think Cleveland is a place Bagley could thrive. Him next to Allen could be a really good front court duo.
I think Bags playing next to Allen would definitely help Bags, but I don't see it for the Kings. Buddy would need to go out. They get a flawed, but in his prime elite shooter with a declining salary. The Kings get a two year contract albatross. The difference in value is a first, but not a high lottery first. So unless Cleveland finds a first from someone else, I don't see it happening.

Maybe a three way trade with Boston. A healthy Love is actually what Boston needs. Their bigs are limited--like kinda similar versions of the Kings bigs (poor facilitators, poor shooters, rim runners, flawed, defense first). But I don't see how Love fits in there salary wise and they would need to sacrifice a ton of defense. Boston misses Horford.

Speaking of which, I think Holmes will get traded. Kings can try to sign him to a bench role next year. He's out performed, but he's levels below elite centers (really limited on offense and defense). Perfect bench energy big for a winning team (should be in that Funderburke role).
 

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#12
I think they both say no. People are talking about how the Kings can't afford to let Walton go yet they'll take on Loves contract with Barnes, Buddy, and a max Fox on the books? Does not compute. I don't totally buy into the money thing anyway but unless Monte truly thinks Love turns this team into a contender the Kings would then have one of the most fiscally irresponsible and veteran filled rosters out there with multiple lotto picks waiting for their turn to even play.
 
#15
I think they both say no. People are talking about how the Kings can't afford to let Walton go yet they'll take on Loves contract with Barnes, Buddy, and a max Fox on the books? Does not compute. I don't totally buy into the money thing anyway but unless Monte truly thinks Love turns this team into a contender the Kings would then have one of the most fiscally irresponsible and veteran filled rosters out there with multiple lotto picks waiting for their turn to even play.
the only way the kings do it is if Buddy and Barnes are off the roster. We have heard of Monte’s 2-4 year rebuild plan and that might include buying bad contracts for assets. Fox, Haliburton, a top 5 pick, 2 more firsts and a bevy of seconds plus young players like DQJ, Ramsey, Woodard plus whoever we get in a Barnes trade is the definition of a rebuild.
 
#16
I'd only consider this for the Kings if it were revers protection. Top 7 or better and we get their pick, if not it rolls.

Two shots at Cade would be very nice.
 
#17
I don't think there's any way Cleveland deals an unprotected pick for Marvin and cap space. Top 5 protected this year and unprotected next year? Maybe.

But yes, depending on McNair's view of Bagley this is the kind of deal bad teams need to make - taking on bloated contracts for draft capital and/or young players with potential.

Coming out of this draft with a pair like Mobley & Barnes or Cade & Kuminga or even Jalen Green & Jalen Johnson (those were the first 3 results I got at Tankathon) could change the course of the Kings franchise.

That said, I think the Cavs immediately say no.
this actually does make sense. From my perspective initially I was 1. Not looking at the CLE pick as one that could fall into top and 2. I’m higher on Bagley than most. But everything you laid out above makes sense....if it’s a high pick from CLE
 
#18
"Potential Top 5 pick" - also, Cavs are 3 games outside of a playoff spot.
3 years of Love's salary. Which incidentally will be higher than Fox's.
I wouldn't do this trade even without Bagley.
thats pretty much where I was at after looking at the standings after looking at the trade proposal
 
#19
What makes me nervous about a trade with Cleveland is that there's a lot of season left and they're a team on the brink of being good enough for a playoff spot. If they give us Love and get back Bagley and/or Hield that pick could wind up in the middle of the first round and at that point its not worth it.

Here's what I would do: revisit this after the season is over. If they've got a top 10 pick this year we can send them Buddy, Bagley, and CoJo for Love (and Taurean Prince so the salaries match). They can then opt out on CoJo and save $10 million off their payroll next season which makes it Love's 2 years at $30+ million per and a decent pick for an overpaid 3pt champion and a young big with good scoring tools. They have a solid foundation defensively and need scorers. We need to rid ourselves of our defensive achilles heels and acquire young talent. Could be a win-win.

The way this league works though, that pick probably has to be in the 6-12 range for Cleveland to consider it because everyone gets stars in their eyes when they see a top 5 pick even though most of them don't pan out. Cleveland should know that better than anybody with the way they used their last run of top 5 picks.. but I'm betting they still hoard that pick if it's top 5.
 
Last edited:
#20
What makes me nervous about a trade with Cleveland is that there's a lot of season left and they're a team on the brink of being good enough for a playoff spot. If they give us Love and get back Bagley and/or Hield that pick could wind up in the middle of the first round and at that point its not worth it.

Here's what I would do: revisit this after the season is over. If they've got a top 10 pick this year we can send them Buddy, Bagley, and CoJo for Love (and Taurean Prince so the salaries match). They can then opt out on CoJo and save $10 million off their payroll next season which makes it Love's 2 years at $30+ million per and a decent pick for an overpaid 3pt champion and a young big with good scoring tools. They have a solid foundation defensively and need scorers. We need to rid ourselves of our defensive achilles heels and acquire young talent. Could be a win-win.

The way this league works though, that pick probably has to be in the 6-12 range for Cleveland to consider it because everyone gets stars in their eyes when they see a top 5 pick even though most of them don't pan out. Cleveland should know that better than anybody with the way they used their last run of top 5 picks.. but I'm betting they still hoard that pick if it's top 5.
Agree, we would be trading active players for an injured Love which should make them better the second half of year.
I find it amusing that the above trade proposal has the Kings getting a high draft pick for Love whereas NBA Analysis Network, who ever they are, has us giving up a pick for him, believing Love a good asset for Sacramento. Otherwise their proposal has the same players involved substitute Parker for Bagley.
 
#21
Agree, we would be trading active players for an injured Love which should make them better the second half of year.
I find it amusing that the above trade proposal has the Kings getting a high draft pick for Love whereas NBA Analysis Network, who ever they are, has us giving up a pick for him, believing Love a good asset for Sacramento. Otherwise their proposal has the same players involved substitute Parker for Bagley.
Even Cavs fans know that Kevin Love has negative trade value at his current salary and production level. Anyone who thinks we need to trade a pick and other assets for the "privilege" of paying a declining player at the end of his career $60 million over the next two seasons is someone you can confidently ignore when it comes to NBA analysis.
 
#24
I guess it mostly has to do with how you diagnose the causes of our worst-in-history defensive rating this season and where we go from there. Relying on the draft to save us is a verifiably foolish idea, I will grant you. Trading young talent which amplifies our weaknesses while only contributing marginally to our strengths might not be if what we get in return is roster balance without losing too much in the long-term talent department.

Put another way, here's a hypothetical question for the message board....

Forget Kevin Love entirely. He's a means to an end in any circumstance. If we swap out Marvin Bagley today and give his 26mpg to G-League sensation Robert Woodard do we get worse?

We obviously lose a floor spacer in that scenario but maybe Bjelica makes up for that or maybe Woodard rediscovers the shooting stroke he flirted with in college. We still have Whiteside and Holmes to catch lobs. And we've got nowhere to go but up on defense. Forget about where they were drafted and the Great Draft Debate of 2018 with whatever vested interest you may have in eventual vindication. Seeing what we've seen this season, who thinks we get considerably worse in the aggregate (offense and defense combined) by swapping Bagley out for Woodard? Then add to that another talent coming in from a pool of players which includes Corey Kispert, Zaire Williams, Moses Moody, Franz Wagner, insert your own favorite draft sleeper. That starts to look appealing to me.

Here's what I think in a nutshell. We don't just need talent or a better coach right now, we need a whole new identity. We're the softest squad of NBA players ever to don a uniform and I don't think you can begin to flush that reputation down the toilet without asking some big questions about every player on the roster and how they are contributing or not contributing toward our present predicament.
 
#25
I guess it mostly has to do with how you diagnose the causes of our worst-in-history defensive rating this season and where we go from there. Relying on the draft to save us is a verifiably foolish idea, I will grant you. Trading young talent which amplifies our weaknesses while only contributing marginally to our strengths might not be if what we get in return is roster balance without losing too much in the long-term talent department.

Put another way, here's a hypothetical question for the message board....

Forget Kevin Love entirely. He's a means to an end in any circumstance. If we swap out Marvin Bagley today and give his 26mpg to G-League sensation Robert Woodard do we get worse?

We obviously lose a floor spacer in that scenario but maybe Bjelica makes up for that or maybe Woodard rediscovers the shooting stroke he flirted with in college. We still have Whiteside and Holmes to catch lobs. And we've got nowhere to go but up on defense. Forget about where they were drafted and the Great Draft Debate of 2018 with whatever vested interest you may have in eventual vindication. Seeing what we've seen this season, who thinks we get considerably worse in the aggregate (offense and defense combined) by swapping Bagley out for Woodard? Then add to that another talent coming in from a pool of players which includes Corey Kispert, Zaire Williams, Moses Moody, Franz Wagner, insert your own favorite draft sleeper. That starts to look appealing to me.

Here's what I think in a nutshell. We don't just need talent or a better coach right now, we need a whole new identity. We're the softest squad of NBA players ever to don a uniform and I don't think you can begin to flush that reputation down the toilet without asking some big questions about every player on the roster and how they are contributing or not contributing toward our present predicament.
This is not an addiction by subtraction situation. The "softness " comes from the top down. Walton is not an aggressive, in your face type of coach and when he tries to be tough it doesn't feel genuine. Fox is supposed to be your lockerroom leader. While he is definitely your best player, his style is also not very physical or aggressive. The Kings are missing the right leadership voices. Haliburton walks onto the court as a rookie and immediately begins to fill part of that leadership void because the vets on the team don't have it. The Kings got destroyed in the bubble (without Bagley) because they mentally were not up for the challenge.

Bazemore seemed great here because he had that voice. I'm still amazed at the impact Shumpert had with just his attitude and style. A guy like Shump does not have an impact like that anywhere else in the league.

So, while I agree the team needs a new identity, I think that comes in the form of new leadership because our best players are not strong enough in that regard. Bagley's presence on the team isn't large enough to impact the culture if you remove him.
 
#26
This is not an addiction by subtraction situation. The "softness " comes from the top down. Walton is not an aggressive, in your face type of coach and when he tries to be tough it doesn't feel genuine. Fox is supposed to be your lockerroom leader. While he is definitely your best player, his style is also not very physical or aggressive. The Kings are missing the right leadership voices. Haliburton walks onto the court as a rookie and immediately begins to fill part of that leadership void because the vets on the team don't have it. The Kings got destroyed in the bubble (without Bagley) because they mentally were not up for the challenge.

Bazemore seemed great here because he had that voice. I'm still amazed at the impact Shumpert had with just his attitude and style. A guy like Shump does not have an impact like that anywhere else in the league.

So, while I agree the team needs a new identity, I think that comes in the form of new leadership because our best players are not strong enough in that regard. Bagley's presence on the team isn't large enough to impact the culture if you remove him.
Joeger mentioned a few times that his kids were too nice. So I don't Walton is the right target. The target for this current softness is Vlade. Dude picked a bunch of soft dudes--look at all of his big picks: WCS, Papa, & Bags. They're all soft. So if we're blaming the top, the blame rests on Vlade.
 
#27
Joeger mentioned a few times that his kids were too nice. So I don't Walton is the right target. The target for this current softness is Vlade. Dude picked a bunch of soft dudes--look at all of his big picks: WCS, Papa, & Bags. They're all soft. So if we're blaming the top, the blame rests on Vlade.
It's not Walton's fault. It's also not any individual players fault. There is a bad mix of personalities.
 
#28
Joeger mentioned a few times that his kids were too nice. So I don't Walton is the right target. The target for this current softness is Vlade. Dude picked a bunch of soft dudes--look at all of his big picks: WCS, Papa, & Bags. They're all soft. So if we're blaming the top, the blame rests on Vlade.
I'm not sure if I would put Papa in with the soft. Bad pick? Yes. Soft? ..... I thought he had an attitude.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#29
This is not an addiction by subtraction situation. The "softness " comes from the top down. Walton is not an aggressive, in your face type of coach and when he tries to be tough it doesn't feel genuine. Fox is supposed to be your lockerroom leader. While he is definitely your best player, his style is also not very physical or aggressive. The Kings are missing the right leadership voices. Haliburton walks onto the court as a rookie and immediately begins to fill part of that leadership void because the vets on the team don't have it. The Kings got destroyed in the bubble (without Bagley) because they mentally were not up for the challenge.

Bazemore seemed great here because he had that voice. I'm still amazed at the impact Shumpert had with just his attitude and style. A guy like Shump does not have an impact like that anywhere else in the league.

So, while I agree the team needs a new identity, I think that comes in the form of new leadership because our best players are not strong enough in that regard. Bagley's presence on the team isn't large enough to impact the culture if you remove him.
It doesn't seem like a coincidence that the best stretch of basketball this team played this season came immediately after Hassan Whiteside got on everyone about being too soft on defense.