Section 101
All-Star
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/PerDiem-130222/nba-trade-deadline-winners-losers
Everyone but Grant ripping the Maloofs on this one
Everyone but Grant ripping the Maloofs on this one
ESPN/SI Trade grades
- Thread starter Section 101
- Start date
TyFreak Evans
Bench
Well, after all, it is Grant we are speaking of. And, plus, the Brothers MaGoofballs kinda have a hold of the dude by his, well, stick...
Also, since you seem to have access to that article as ESPN Insider subscriber, would you mind copying the entire article into a message here for all of us non subscribers to read? I would like to read what people are saying about all the trades that have taken place, just not the one involving the Kings. Thanks.
I really think this trade is indefensible, that said, it sure seems like the only thing positive to say about T-Rob is that he was a top 5 lottery pick. Article after article reports that as if it actually translates into him automatically being a great player when the unfortunate reality is that he may never be more than a rotation player himself.
That's a no-can-do, buddy. Copyright issues, and what not.
TyFreak Evans
Bench
OK that's understandable...
gunks
Hall of Famer
We can only hope. But then that just makes GP look bad for drafting him in the first place. Ah well, soon all those lazy bums, goofballs, and idjits in the FO will be gone.
Kingfanpaul
Starter
I'll be happy when we have a new owner, GM, and coach here in Sacramento.
Padrino
All-Star
D13
Bench
This trade truly is indefensible. Even if there are signs TRob may bust, it was still too early to give up on him. Not to mention the pain of yet another terrible season with now hardly nothing to show for it.
I'm wondering how the heck Maloofs got this by the Seattle boys. Even though they don't have the sale wrapped up, they have a contract with intent to do so. They put their money out to buy a product that has now changed for the worse since an agreement. 99% of the NBA world agrees that it was a bad trade. How did Hansen Ballmer not consult somebody as to if this was a good idea, and pressure Maloofs to hold off? If this is any indication of their BB decisions, they are going to be as clueless as the Maloofs if they ever do get a team.
I'm wondering how the heck Maloofs got this by the Seattle boys. Even though they don't have the sale wrapped up, they have a contract with intent to do so. They put their money out to buy a product that has now changed for the worse since an agreement. 99% of the NBA world agrees that it was a bad trade. How did Hansen Ballmer not consult somebody as to if this was a good idea, and pressure Maloofs to hold off? If this is any indication of their BB decisions, they are going to be as clueless as the Maloofs if they ever do get a team.
Seattle doesn't care, they just want a team. Beggars can't be choosers.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Hansen and Ballmer OK'd the trade which shows they are as clueless as the Maloofs. That ought to help our argument in supporting Burkle and Mastrov in buying the team and keeping it in Sacramento. Why give a team from one clueless group to another clueless group when there is an opportunity to strengthen the Kings?
I think this move clears some space. I think the new ownership would want to be a player in free agency and this clears future space, at least I think it does.
I amended the title so I could include this assessment from SI:
http://nba.si.com/2013/02/21/nba-trade-deadline-winners-and-losers/
Losers: Teams
Sacramento Kings: Trading a top-five pick like Robinson just nine months after selecting him without ever giving him a true shot at major minutes reflects failure in so many aspects of the management process. One: Certainly the pick could have been used more effectively. Two: A loose leash, or at least some level of patience, should have come into play in managing his role. Three: This was the best they could get as far as a return package?
The move also reflects an obvious desire to cut costs as an ownership transfer from the Maloofs to a Seattle-based group unfolds. Dealing Robinson to the Rockets reportedly netted the Kings $1 million, along with an additional $1 million-plus in salary savings. Is tossing away Robinson’s potential really worth that little? If Sacramento’s fans hadn’t been through so much in recent years, this would have prompted unadulterated outrage. Instead, it joins a long line of blood-boiling, pathetic decisions.
http://nba.si.com/2013/02/21/nba-trade-deadline-winners-and-losers/
Losers: Teams
Sacramento Kings: Trading a top-five pick like Robinson just nine months after selecting him without ever giving him a true shot at major minutes reflects failure in so many aspects of the management process. One: Certainly the pick could have been used more effectively. Two: A loose leash, or at least some level of patience, should have come into play in managing his role. Three: This was the best they could get as far as a return package?
The move also reflects an obvious desire to cut costs as an ownership transfer from the Maloofs to a Seattle-based group unfolds. Dealing Robinson to the Rockets reportedly netted the Kings $1 million, along with an additional $1 million-plus in salary savings. Is tossing away Robinson’s potential really worth that little? If Sacramento’s fans hadn’t been through so much in recent years, this would have prompted unadulterated outrage. Instead, it joins a long line of blood-boiling, pathetic decisions.
uolj
Starter
I don't think it does. I think it clears space for Houston. I believe Garcia and Honeycutt are ending contracts and Robinson is on a cheap rookie deal. It seems to be strictly about putting cash into the Maloofs pockets right now.
And I think this is a minor enough deal that the Seattle ownership group would say, "whatever" and let it happen. It won't impact the team so significantly for the future that they would raise a stink about it. I don't think it says anything negative about the Seattle ownership group.
This certainly outlines things well.
After going through this, my thought is why the hell did they sign Aaron Brooks? I realize the Maloofs may have only recently changed their minds on selling the team, so maybe they actually thought it was a good basketball move....but if they even were considering selling and wanted to conserve resources, why sign him?
I still for the life of me can't get why Grant even tried to defend the trade. It's completely indefensible and only a money grab. Why can't he just say it? He doesn't even need to overtly criticize them.
uolj
Starter
It would make sense if their financial situation has been deteriorating. First they tell Petrie to be aggressive and go ahead and get near the salary cap in an attempt to make the team look good to potential buyers. Once they have a deal maybe they feel more secure in getting some cash by reducing salaries.
If you're having trouble financially and decide you might have to sell your house, maybe you invest some money (if you have it) on painting or replacing the flooring. Then, once you get a buyer, maybe you sell some of the appliances because spending money on the flooring wasn't such a bright idea and you need some cash. The new buyer doesn't care, she was probably going to replace that dishwasher anyway when she remodels the whole kitchen.
The moves the Maloofs made were made with the intention of appearing to pursue talent without any plans to actually spend to assemble a winning team. Stern said something along the lines of "we may have revenue sharing, but that doesn't mean we're going to allow owners to cost cut and lose and then collect profits from winners." So the Maloofs had to make some signings with some perceived value in order to appear as though some attempt at winning was made no matter how limp-legged that attempt may be.
ESPN grade - not good
E-S-P-N
P-S-H-N
pshn80 grade - "B"
I agree with Grant. I haven't heard his reasons but mine are:
1) we are correcting an error made in our draft. Shouldn't have added a rookie and particularly a raw rookie. Robinson wasn't developing as expected or at a decent rate.
2). We gave up 3 non-starters the best of them today is Garcia. We got three players, one part time starter plus two. About a push on present talent level.
3). We need a big guy on the bench - got it; we need a guard with a modicum of size and defensive capability- got it; we need a back up PF more polished than we had. / we got it.
4). We needed to freshen the team and make it a little more interesting for the rest of the season - we did it.
5). I find myself liking the trade and looking forward to the rest of the season.
E-S-P-N
P-S-H-N
pshn80 grade - "B"
I agree with Grant. I haven't heard his reasons but mine are:
1) we are correcting an error made in our draft. Shouldn't have added a rookie and particularly a raw rookie. Robinson wasn't developing as expected or at a decent rate.
2). We gave up 3 non-starters the best of them today is Garcia. We got three players, one part time starter plus two. About a push on present talent level.
3). We need a big guy on the bench - got it; we need a guard with a modicum of size and defensive capability- got it; we need a back up PF more polished than we had. / we got it.
4). We needed to freshen the team and make it a little more interesting for the rest of the season - we did it.
5). I find myself liking the trade and looking forward to the rest of the season.
Last edited:
DesertFox
Starter
1) Robinson went from doing nothing to becoming one of the top 20 rebounders in the NBA. He might never justify #5 pick status, but a double double who can switch unto guards on picks has value.
2) Fair enough. The team is no worse, although we replaced a SF with another combo guard, so it depends where the minutes go. And the best outcome is Reke getting minutes at the 3, which is not a good outcome.
3) Depth needs for the final 2 months of a lottery season= not really needs.
4) If Patterson takes Trob's minutes, fine, there's some improvement. But Trob was also a pretty exciting player. It's a wash. If they play Patterson at SF (although, honestly not likely to work) it will at least be interesting.
5) I actually like Douglas and Aldrich as backend rotation players. But I could say the same for Hayes, Johnson, Salmons, Brooks, and Jimmer. I don't like seeing 12 players play in a game that isn't a blowout. I am not excited to see how this mess plays out.
kingsnation
All-Star
1) So exactly how quickly did we expect Trob to develop? Barely halfway through his rookie campaign and we're done with him? Jimmer was essentially drafted at 7 and he's still lurking around after a year and a half.
2) Trob isn't good enough for a terrible team (us), but a team on the cusp of making the playoffs wants him and gave up their starting 4 to get him. hmmm.
3) We didn't just need a "big guy on the bench." We needed a big that could bring rebounding and defense with a tad of offense. We also needed to rid our team of AT LEAST 1 of our guards, instead we added one. We also needed to get better at the 3, which we didn't address at all.
4) There is absolutely NO REASON to "freshen" this team at this point in the year. Why? To get 1 or 2 more wins and ruin our draft positioning?
What's even more frustrating is Smart never really gave him an opportunity to get big minutes and work through his rookie troubles. Had we given him 25 MPG from the year, we might be looking at him being a 10/8 guy off the bench for us by now. It's going to be incredibly frustrating watching Trob develop into a great player with Houston
Any doubts in your mind at all that come April TRob is going to return to STA just in time to drop 20/20 on us?
No doubt. Houston is the perfect up-tempo system for him and I love the fact that he's going to get to work with McHale. If they start him, it would not surprise me at all to see him be a double-double guy, or close to it the rest of the year
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Chupacabra
Starter
Id like to point out that noone in the media had anything positive to say about robinson before the trade, but after the trade it was a STEAL for houston and sacramento is the definition of a loser in this deal 
L
LWP777
Guest
I'm not at all worried about that. He's not good enough to drop 20/20 or anywhere close to that right now. I wish him well but we did the right thing and we cut our losses. He was the wrong pick. That was the main mistake.
L
LWP777
Guest
Id like to point out that noone in the media had anything positive to say about robinson before the trade, but after the trade it was a STEAL for houston and sacramento is the definition of a loser in this deal
Exactly. Very good point. Right now our franchise is viewed around the league as what's in the bottom of an outhouse. The media will find any excuse to bash what the Maloofs do (and rightfully so). Once we get them out of town and bring in new owners, a new GM and a new coach, things will change for the better.
Similar threads
- NBC Sports Philadelphia
- Kings News Links
