Draft night trade scenario (Thompson for Jennings?)

Entity said:
This doesn't make sense. Why can't we have 3 good froncourt players. Is there a rule I missed somewhere. What sense does it make to have 2 decent bigs then have **** on the bench. Which is what we have had for years and years. Pollard and Keon were ok by dynamic is not a word to describe either of them. If we got Griffin. A frontcourt of Hawes, Thompson and Griffin would be great.

With foul trouble and incosistancy there are plenty of min to go around and you get the choice of going with the hot hand. Last year Thompson and Hawes when starting only got around 32-35 min each the rest was given to small ball or other crap.

total of 96 min to go around for the pf/c positons. thats 32 min for 3 players.

Lets say we don't have Thompson and Griffin or Hawes gets in foul trouble early. Then what you go with whatever crap we picked up in FA to cover that time.

Besides you trade now and get a draft pick. Or you give it couple of years let them develop and mature then you have the chance to trade for a proven player.

If you think we would be good with Thompson or Griffin. How much better would we be with both.
Click to expand...

Good luck, I've already tried to make this argument..
 
Yea I am also confused as to why people are so hell bent on giving up JT if we get Griffin. He seems like perfect high character guy who wouldnt mind competing with Griffin for the starting spot.
 
Entity said:
This doesn't make sense. Why can't we have 3 good froncourt players. Is there a rule I missed somewhere. What sense does it make to have 2 decent bigs then have **** on the bench. Which is what we have had for years and years. Pollard and Keon were ok by dynamic is not a word to describe either of them. If we got Griffin. A frontcourt of Hawes, Thompson and Griffin would be great.

With foul trouble and incosistancy there are plenty of min to go around and you get the choice of going with the hot hand. Last year Thompson and Hawes when starting only got around 32-35 min each the rest was given to small ball or other crap.

total of 96 min to go around for the pf/c positons. thats 32 min for 3 players.

Lets say we don't have Thompson and Griffin or Hawes gets in foul trouble early. Then what you go with whatever crap we picked up in FA to cover that time.

Besides you trade now and get a draft pick. Or you give it couple of years let them develop and mature then you have the chance to trade for a proven player.

If you think we would be good with Thompson or Griffin. How much better would we be with both.
Click to expand...

I assume you're replying to me. First of all, I never said you can't have all three of them and I never said there wouldn't be benefits to it. I suggested that Thompson's value might be better served being traded to fill in another starting position than as a backup, where he doesn't really make up for either Griffin or Hawes' weaknesses. Sure, our frontcourt would be better with three of them than with two of them, I think that goes without saying. However, that's not the point, the point is we're rebuilding and we have to think about our starting lineup (our core players) before we start worrying about depth. Just like if you're building a house, you start with the foundation first. You wait and you risk Thompson's production dropping from being a bench player and he doesn't have as high of trade value. And about the whole foul trouble thing, so what if they get into foul trouble and we have to put some scrub in? What will it hurt, our chances at a 30 win season?

Look, I made a suggestion that it might be the best use of his value to trade him to fill out a core position in the rebuild. Is Jennings a risk? Sure, but for any rebuilding team to go somewhere they're going to have to take some risk on a prospect in order to make that leap forward. If you're not down with Jennings, that's perfectly reasonable, but the principle still stands.

I don't know why some are acting like I kicked their dog with this suggestion, I think I made a good argument.
 
Lets argue about this after Tuesday when we see what our pick is(number 1 I seen it in my dreams last night chris with that wide smile on his face like I knew it 3 months ago stern told me haha) and what's the issue. Utah has a big man Rotation with Boozer Millsap and Okur that's similar to what we would have. The Lakers have a 3 man roation Gasol Bynum and Odom? Sound similar if we have Griffin Thompson and Hawes you could easily argue we have the best Front court in basketball or at least most dynamic. Also are people forgetting all the free agent forwards we are losing. Half our PF's besides Thomas are FA's so are you telling me you'd rather resign Diogu than have the problem of Thompson and Griffin be serious. Thompson stays his personality is one where he will do what the team wants him to do to win. And I could see the situation not being Thompson, but Hawes losing minutes, becaue JT is a scrapper and does the intangibles so even if he isn't scoring he's still a presence on defense you guys need to open your eyes and stop being so quick to trade talent for promise.
 
If we wait till Tuesday then the whole hypothetical scenario probably becomes moot.

I'm not arguing that a 3 big rotation is a bad thing to have, I'm saying first things first, and that is taking care of our core before anything else. We don't have the luxuries of teams like Utah and LA to have starter quality players coming off the bench, when we have huge holes in our future core still.
 
Vlade4GM said:
I assume you're replying to me. First of all, I never said you can't have all three of them and I never said there wouldn't be benefits to it. I suggested that Thompson's value might be better served being traded to fill in another starting position than as a backup, where he doesn't really make up for either Griffin or Hawes' weaknesses. Sure, our frontcourt would be better with three of them than with two of them, I think that goes without saying. However, that's not the point, the point is we're rebuilding and we have to think about our starting lineup (our core players) before we start worrying about depth. Just like if you're building a house, you start with the foundation first. You wait and you risk Thompson's production dropping from being a bench player and he doesn't have as high of trade value. And about the whole foul trouble thing, so what if they get into foul trouble and we have to put some scrub in? What will it hurt, our chances at a 30 win season?

Look, I made a suggestion that it might be the best use of his value to trade him to fill out a core position in the rebuild. Is Jennings a risk? Sure, but for any rebuilding team to go somewhere they're going to have to take some risk on a prospect in order to make that leap forward. If you're not down with Jennings, that's perfectly reasonable, but the principle still stands.

I don't know why some are acting like I kicked their dog with this suggestion, I think I made a good argument.
Click to expand...

I think the only way it would have worked with all three of them is if Thompson came off the bench all last season. To tell him that "you are our starter of the future" then bench him the next season for nothing but the reason of "Griffin is probably better" isn't right and it would make Thompson unhappy. If Thompson is unhappy his effort goes down and most certainly his numbers will go down. In turn his trade value goes down leading to another trade that all of us on this board will argue about for days. Draft Griffin and find a way to trade him for a SF like Josh Smith.
 
Sigh. I, at least, feel no need to equivocate on this issue.

Griffin, JT and Hawes...DO NOT WORK. They are duplicative. They are stubby. They all play only side of the floor, and would in each other's way on the other.

Even if that were not true, in 2 years you lose JT/Griffin as he goes off to be somebody's starting guy for big $$.

And snobby as this is going to sound, this is something you either just get or not -- its like somebody saying Arenas/Martin/Melo/Bosh/Amare = guaranteed championship!!! No, no it wouldn't be. But you can't argue it with numbers. There is a certain tone deafness to piling on duplicative players who play the same role and need the ball and expecting it to lead to success. A fantasy ball/Dream Team aspect. The simplest thing to do is just to say "name one great team that has ever had a frontcourt built like that" and leave people to ponder (there hasn't been, so don't worry about it).

I will close with a little song I composed that all Kings fans should sing every night before they go to bed every night:

Defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense.

Try singing it to the melody of just about any of your favorite songs -- you'll find it works right across the board.
 
Last edited:
The assumption seems to be that Griffin is better than Thompson. Why? Thompson has as much going for him than Griffin. I think he has better defensive potential, and better offensive low post potential. So why give up on him? As for Jennings, you'd be trading a known in Thompson for an unknown in Jennings. Why? By all accounts, Jennings is very raw and the risk is considerably higher than Thompson carries. Is Jennings potential so much greater than Thompson's that such a trade would be justified?
 
Kingster said:
The assumption seems to be that Griffin is better than Thompson. Why? Thompson has as much going for him than Griffin. I think he has better defensive potential, and better offensive low post potential. So why give up on him? As for Jennings, you'd be trading a known in Thompson for an unknown in Jennings. Why? By all accounts, Jennings is very raw and the risk is considerably higher than Thompson carries. Is Jennings potential so much greater than Thompson's that such a trade would be justified?
Click to expand...

I love JT, but he really hasn't proved a ton in the league yet. I think he has a great chance at being a very good player, but Griffin has a great chance of becoming something very special in the league. I probably would not trade Thompson for Jennings at this moment, but I would like to see how he does in workouts etc. first. Thompson is also 3-4 years older than Jennings.
 
Kingster said:
The assumption seems to be that Griffin is better than Thompson. Why? Thompson has as much going for him than Griffin. I think he has better defensive potential, and better offensive low post potential. So why give up on him? As for Jennings, you'd be trading a known in Thompson for an unknown in Jennings. Why? By all accounts, Jennings is very raw and the risk is considerably higher than Thompson carries. Is Jennings potential so much greater than Thompson's that such a trade would be justified?
Click to expand...

As far as Jennings having higher upside or not, he sure does. He'd instantly be one of the best athletes in the league at PG, has great natural PG abilities, and a good feel for the game. Does this mean he's a cant miss or a for sure player? Nope, it doesn't but as far as upside goes yes he definitely has much higher upside than Thompson at their respective positions, no doubt about that. Whether it's justified, well that depends on how you value PG's vs. PF's and what you think the realistic likelihood of Jennings coming close to his upside is.

As far as Thompson vs. Griffin, that's something I'd rather wait on before I get into that. Ultimately, that'd be beside the point though because they're still very redundant in what they offer, whichever one you choose to move.
 
Last edited:
Bricklayer said:
Sigh. I, at least, feel no need to equivocate on this issue.

Griffin, JT and Hawes...DO NOT WORK. They are duplicative. They are stubby. They all play only side of the floor, and would in each other's way on the other.

Even if that were not true, in 2 years you lose JT/Griffin as he goes off to be somebody's starting guy for big $$.

And snobby as this is going to sound, this is something you either just get or not -- its like somebody saying Arenas/Martin/Melo/Bosh/Amare = guaranteed championship!!! No, no it wouldn't be. But you can't argue it with numbers. There is a certain tone deafness to piling on duplicative players who play the same role and need the ball and expecting it to lead to success. A fantasy ball/Dream Team aspect. The simplest thing to do is just to say "name one great team that has ever had a frontcourt built like that" and leave people to ponder (there hasn't been, so don't worry about it).

I will close with a little song I composed that all Kings fans should sing every night before they go to bed every night:

Defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense, defense.

Try singing it to the melody of just about any of your favorite songs -- you'll find it works right across the board.
Click to expand...

I agree with this - long term.

BUT I see no reason why JT/Griffin/Hawes cant be our frontcourt THIS coming season ... all were playing for is development anyways. You keep them for a year - hell, maybe even half a year then trade one of JT or Griffin for a starting SF or PG.
 
Besides the defensive concerns how do you plan on paying three starting quality young big men. Someone is going to come along and offer any young big a contract. You are going to be forced to pay a backup starter money or let him walk for nothing.

You are not going to give these guys equal roles, someone is going to emerge and someone is going to have to take a lesser role. The player with a lesser role isn't going to stick around if the opportunity to be a starter presents its self and the money is there.

If you take Griffin i think you have to try and move Thompson. With all the holes this team has Thompson could be a valuable asset. I don't think you need to be in a rush to make a trade but if the right deal presents itself before the draft then i would be fine with trading Thompson for a lotto pick.
 
Bricklayer said:
Sigh. I, at least, feel no need to equivocate on this issue.

Griffin, JT and Hawes...DO NOT WORK. They are duplicative. They are stubby. They all play only side of the floor, and would in each other's way on the other.

Even if that were not true, in 2 years you lose JT/Griffin as he goes off to be somebody's starting guy for big $$.

And snobby as this is going to sound, this is something you either just get or not -- its like somebody saying Arenas/Martin/Melo/Bosh/Amare = guaranteed championship!!! No, no it wouldn't be.
Click to expand...


First of all, as the worst team in the league, having three talented bigs is the least of our worries. At worst, they don't fit and we offload one. But you don't let this get in the way of obtaining the best player in the draft.

Second, JT/Griffin/Hawes are not duplicative. Whether they can fit together, I'm not sure, but they are very different players. And no, JT doesn't need the ball, and Griffin doesn't either, at least not yet.

Third, using your scenario, if we have Arenas/Martin/Melo/Bosh and then we have a chance to draft Amare, are you saying we should turn him down in favor of a lesser talent? No one is saying we are going to win the championship, but as the worst team in the league, this is when we should stockpile talent, not run away from it becaue of some strange notion that too many talent = bad fit.
 
Henkel said:
Besides the defensive concerns how do you plan on paying three starting quality young big men. Someone is going to come along and offer any young big a contract. You are going to be forced to pay a backup starter money or let him walk for nothing.

You are not going to give these guys equal roles, someone is going to emerge and someone is going to have to take a lesser role. The player with a lesser role isn't going to stick around if the opportunity to be a starter presents its self and the money is there.
Click to expand...


You simply cannot let the fear of seeing a young player leave prevent you from drafting the best player available.

You know, as soon as the Raptors drafted Chris Bosh they knew Michael Bradly was not going to stick around. So what? Draft a good player, pad yourself on the back, and worry about the rest later.
 
Kingster said:
The assumption seems to be that Griffin is better than Thompson. Why? Thompson has as much going for him than Griffin. I think he has better defensive potential, and better offensive low post potential. So why give up on him? As for Jennings, you'd be trading a known in Thompson for an unknown in Jennings. Why? By all accounts, Jennings is very raw and the risk is considerably higher than Thompson carries. Is Jennings potential so much greater than Thompson's that such a trade would be justified?
Click to expand...
Nothing is ever assured. Potentially trading Thompson to try to even out the roster with a talented guard isn't the same as "giving up" on Thompson though. It is taking a calculated risk that the player(s) you acquire will benefit the team more than if that player had remained on the roster.

Taking Griffin and acquiring a guard via trade for Thompson is a risk, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

beb0p said:
You simply cannot let the fear of seeing a young player leave prevent you from drafting the best player available.
Click to expand...
True. But if you have two players very close on your draft board, you would be foolish to not consider all aspects of how that player may impact your team long term.
 
Last edited:
beb0p said:
You simply cannot let the fear of seeing a young player leave prevent you from drafting the best player available.

You know, as soon as the Raptors drafted Chris Bosh they knew Michael Bradly was not going to stick around. So what? Draft a good player, pad yourself on the back, and worry about the rest later.
Click to expand...

There is some truth to that. I wouldn't mind taking a wait and see approach while we gage the effectiveness of the three, considering Thompson isn't going to lose value anytime soon. I just think its going to be hard to ask one of those talented bigs to take a backup role in a league where young big men are in such demand. Just so were clear i don't think you pass on Griffin because of Thompson. We obviously need to take the best player available regardless of position and in my eyes thats Griffin.
 
Vlade4GM said:
I assume you're replying to me. First of all, I never said you can't have all three of them and I never said there wouldn't be benefits to it. I suggested that Thompson's value might be better served being traded to fill in another starting position than as a backup, where he doesn't really make up for either Griffin or Hawes' weaknesses. Sure, our frontcourt would be better with three of them than with two of them, I think that goes without saying. However, that's not the point, the point is we're rebuilding and we have to think about our starting lineup (our core players) before we start worrying about depth. Just like if you're building a house, you start with the foundation first. You wait and you risk Thompson's production dropping from being a bench player and he doesn't have as high of trade value. And about the whole foul trouble thing, so what if they get into foul trouble and we have to put some scrub in? What will it hurt, our chances at a 30 win season?

Look, I made a suggestion that it might be the best use of his value to trade him to fill out a core position in the rebuild. Is Jennings a risk? Sure, but for any rebuilding team to go somewhere they're going to have to take some risk on a prospect in order to make that leap forward. If you're not down with Jennings, that's perfectly reasonable, but the principle still stands.

I don't know why some are acting like I kicked their dog with this suggestion, I think I made a good argument.
Click to expand...

Just so you know. I'm fine with your proposal. It certainly gave us something to discuss. As a matter of fact, I don't always assume that the person that makes the initial proposal is down with it himself. Just stop kicking my dog.:D
 
Someone mention it earlier. It is risky to trade a proven talent like Thompson for an unproven talent in Jennings. Considering that he is not playing at the level that he should be (He is still having a hard time adjusting to the Euro style of basketball). The Kings should not do this. It's never good to trade a big for a small. Unless, Petrie sees something special in Jennings.
 
I really hate how biased this forum is towards JT. He's really not THAT good. He's BARELY a 14/10 guy when he plays 35-40 minutes. Not to mention he is already 22, almost 23 I believe.

If we got Griffin, I would trade him for Jennings immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

twslam07
[Drastic Edition] “THE” Trade Deadline Move to Make…
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
twslam07
twslam07
twslam07
  • Poll Poll
“THE” Trade Deadline Move to Make…
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
7K
The_Jamal
T
K
[Rumor] Trade rumor: Spurs reportedly 'positioning' for Kings' De'Aaron Fox; Says he's a Manu Ginobili fan
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Caccia
Caccia
K
Schroder Trade
Replies
1
Views
202
iowamcnabb
iowamcnabb
Y
Lakers may cut ties with Austin Reaves in massive swap for $186 million Kings big to help LeBron, Luka
Replies
2
Views
398
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
Back
Top