Is a single player the Kings answer?

[Merdiesel]

All this Kevin Garnett talk has got me thinking...

In order for the Kings to aquire KG, they would definitely be letting go of a lot of players...

My question is, would getting this single player (which yes, is an All-Star top 10 player in the league) answer our problems???

it doesn't improve our bench, it doesn't give us a decent back up point guard, doesnt give us a center we can rely on...

Dont get me wrong i love Garnett's game, but TEAMS win games, not single players...

im really hoping PETRIE makes good decisions this off season.

 

[BMiller52]

Well it depends who you have around that one player. I mean 2 stars(KG and Artest) surrounded by a supporting cast are going to beat a bunch of average/above average players 9/10 times. I mean look at Shaq and Kobe, Hakeem and Drexler, Duncan/Ginobili/Parker, Michael and Scottie, etc. A team with 2+ superstars has been the champion 9/10 times since 1995( http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/ ). Artest and KG would be our 2 stars.

 

[Rome]

Yes when you have the chance of getting one of the best players in NBA its worth trading some of your best players to aquire that player. With KG im sure we can put a few pieces around him and make it work. Getting rid of Miller,Bonzi,KT, and a pick to get KG would not hurt the Kings at all.

 

[Bricklayer]

All this Kevin Garnett talk has got me thinking...

In order for the Kings to aquire KG, they would definitely be letting go of a lot of players...

My question is, would getting this single player (which yes, is an All-Star top 10 player in the league) answer our problems???

it doesn't improve our bench, it doesn't give us a decent back up point guard, doesnt give us a center we can rely on...

Dont get me wrong i love Garnett's game, but TEAMS win games, not single players...

im really hoping PETRIE makes good decisions this off season.

Benches are nearly irrelevant compared to top end stars. Let alone backup PGs. You worry about all that stuff AFTER you've got your core guys, not in trying to get them. There are always backup PGs available. Always guys to fill out the roster. On the other hand there is a Garnett level player available for trade once or twice a decade. And if you get that opportunity you damn well better take it. Plenty of time afterward to put together the role players around your star forwards.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Benches are nearly irrelevant compared to top end stars.

I thought the 2003 playoffs settled that issue once and for all. I don't even understand how it could still be a question.

 

[Entity]

talk about a team with Artest and Garrnett on it and filling in around them. Remeber you still got bibby or Bonzi and K-mart and Sar with Garcia rounding out the top 3. thats not shabby for a Bench. you can do much worse than Sar at Backup 4 maybe 5 a times and Garcia as backup 2/3 isn't bad at all considering his court vision, ball handling, and defense. not to mention when his shot catches up to NBA speed he will be an offensive threat.

 

[VF21]

All this Kevin Garnett talk has got me thinking...

In order for the Kings to aquire KG, they would definitely be letting go of a lot of players...

My question is, would getting this single player (which yes, is an All-Star top 10 player in the league) answer our problems???

it doesn't improve our bench, it doesn't give us a decent back up point guard, doesnt give us a center we can rely on...

Dont get me wrong i love Garnett's game, but TEAMS win games, not single players...

im really hoping PETRIE makes good decisions this off season.

Good question IMHO.

I don't think any single player we could realistically get - dreams of Kevin Garnett aside - is going to solve our problems. We have TWO real needs we need to address. We need to do something about the 4/5 and we have to find a suitable backup for Bibby. The idea there are always backup PGs available may sound good, but we sure didn't do much about getting one last year. Jason Hart? Oh, puh-leese.

Our bench has to be addressed at some point. I don't agree with the concept that you can just park garbage at the end of your bench and expect them to suddenly rise to the occasion if needed.

This year the playoffs were goofy because of the way teams were seeded. I think that's part of the reason the Spurs were knocked out. San Antonio, regardless, still has the type of team structure I think Petrie is eventually shooting for. Their top 7-8 can and do start. The remaining players are at least on the court occasionally. I know some people disagree, but I think that is what we should be shooting for.

Hart is a wash; KT just isn't worth his contract; Price is a question mark, as is Sampson; Potapenko is probably not going to be of much use; Monia is a question mark. Garcia has a lot of potential and should continue to improve. Martin is coming along quite nicely. Bonzi is ... Bonzi. Artest is ... Artest. SAR is adequate but there's room for improvement. Miller is always a question. Bibby is solid but would be much better if he had an adequate backup. Corliss has heart but Adelman never seemed to find a way to use him.

That isn't a team that's going to vault back to the top without the addition of SEVERAL new pieces IMHO.

At this point, trying to acquire Kevin Garnett just might be too expensive. Trying to fill in around him just might not be possible considering the price tag, in $$$ and players, he would command.

 

[DocHolliday]

No, one player is not the total difference. But, KG would be another step in that process. You have Bibby, you drafted martin. you acquired Artest, you get rid of Brad in a trade for KG, which now forces you to go get a new center. It's all a process.

 

[VF21]

But the acquisition of Kevin Garnett would carry a very steep price tag, which could severely curtail the process. And, in a lot of scenarios, it isn't Miller who's leaving for Garnett, it's Bibby.

 

[whozit]

I was under the impression that most had Miller and Bonzi or Bibby, not Bibby or Miller. Steep price, yes. Worth it? Depends on what other pieces are included along with just how willing and how far over the tax limit the Maloofs would be willing to go.

Details, details and more details..........................?

 

[DocHolliday]

But the acquisition of Kevin Garnett would carry a very steep price tag, which could severely curtail the process. And, in a lot of scenarios, it isn't Miller who's leaving for Garnett, it's Bibby.

If Bibby has to go they better have a REALLY good plan of who they are going to put in place of Bibby. In any case I don't want this trade happening unless Brad Miller is involved. That's the guy I mainly want to get rid of.

 

[VF21]

I agree, Doc. I would much rather lose Brad than Bibby. Unfortunately, I don't think the TWolves do the deal either way. And I especially don't think they're gonna do it for Miller and change...

 

[whozit]

Personally, and I'm probably in the minority on this, I don't think I would want a trade where it was Brad and Mike straight up for Garnett. I think despite how good a player he is, it would leave too big of holes in both the C and PG positions to fill. If it is them, I think I would want to take one or two of their bad contracts (excluding Madsen) in exchange for thomas.

Sort of like picking a poison.

 

[Padrino]

Personally, and I'm probably in the minority on this, I don't think I would want a trade where it was Brad and Mike straight up for Garnett. I think despite how good a player he is, it would leave too big of holes in both the C and PG positions to fill. If it is them, I think I would want to take one or two of their bad contracts (excluding Madsen) in exchange for thomas.

Sort of like picking a poison.

those holes aren't as big as they seem. kevin garnett is a cure-all. he's a statistical anomaly, leading his team in every important category. he's ben wallace and chris webber rolled into one. with a guy like kevin garnett, you just need a second wheel and a proper set of role players surrounding him. artest and garnett together is tough, and is something to build on. artest, garnett, and bonzi or artest, garnett, and bibby is something else entirely. either of those are a more dangerous core--in theory--than webber, stojakovic, and bibby. garnett is still good enough to put up huge numbers. as long as artest/wells or artest/bibby do their jobs and play secondary--but important--roles, 3 guys can take the team to a championship. you fill in the gaps with role players. sign a guy like pryzbilla to play a solid center. nothing spectacular, but good enough to assist garnett in getting the job done. if bibby is included, get marko jaric from the t-wolves in the deal. he's highly overpaid for what he does, but what he does is exactly what garnett, artest, and bonzi would need. he'd bring the ball upcourt, play a little defense, and shoot the occasional 3. the bench has a few key components in SAR, garcia, and martin (if bonzi wasn't included in the deal).

people seem to be missing the point a bit. i don't know why there is even hesitation on this issue. everybody out there wants to see an nba championship come to sacramento, right? well, a whole lotta nba history says that you need a superstar to get there (recent detroit pistons aside). even the houston rockets--who won two nba championships in the mid-90's while michael jordan was playing minor league baseball--had hakeem olajuwan. artest, wells, bibby, miller...these guys are good, but they're not superstars. kevin garnett is a superstar. who cares what the price is? and i'm talking realistic price. i've never seen a deal transpire in the nba in which an entire starting unit was traded to land a superstar. it just doesn't work that way. you're not gonna have to give up miller, bibby, wells, rahim, thomas, martin, garcia, and the 19th pick to get kevin garnett. and if people are worried about depth, well brick said it best. you worry about your starting unit first, and then move down the bench to fill in the holes. and believe, with garnett, there wouldn't be many holes. all of that said, there is going to be somebody remaining on this kings team who could assist a player like kevin garnett in bringing a championship to sacramento. given his age, it is important that somebody's left, because you get kevin garnett in order to win now. and i don't think anybody hear is going to say no to a core of garnett, artest, bibby/wells.

 

[nbrans]

^Yeah, exactly.

 

[VF21]

those holes aren't as big as they seem. kevin garnett is a cure-all. he's a statistical anomaly, leading his team in every important category. he's ben wallace and chris webber rolled into one. with a guy like kevin garnett, you just need a second wheel and a proper set of role players surrounding him. artest and garnett together is tough, and is something to build on. artest, garnett, and bonzi or artest, garnett, and bibby is something else entirely. either of those are a more dangerous core--in theory--than webber, stojakovic, and bibby. garnett is still good enough to put up huge numbers. as long as artest/wells or artest/bibby do their jobs and play secondary--but important--roles, 3 guys can take the team to a championship. you fill in the gaps with role players. sign a guy like pryzbilla to play a solid center. nothing spectacular, but good enough to assist garnett in getting the job done. if bibby is included, get marko jaric from the t-wolves in the deal. he's highly overpaid for what he does, but what he does is exactly what garnett, artest, and bonzi would need. he'd bring the ball upcourt, play a little defense, and shoot the occasional 3. the bench has a few key components in SAR, garcia, and martin (if bonzi wasn't included in the deal).

people seem to be missing the point a bit. i don't know why there is even hesitation on this issue. everybody out there wants to see an nba championship come to sacramento, right? well, a whole lotta nba history says that you need a superstar to get there (detroit pistons aside). even the houston rockets--who won two nba championships in the mid-90's while michael jordan was playing minor league baseball--had hakeem olajuwan. artest, wells, bibby, miller...these guys are good, but they're not superstars. kevin garnett is a superstar. who cares what the price is? and i'm talking realistic price. i've never seen a deal transpire in the nba in which an entire starting unit was traded to land a superstar. it just doesn't work that way. you're not gonna have to give up miller, bibby, wells, rahim, thomas martin, garcia, and the 19th pick to get kevin garnett. and if people are worried about depth, well brick said it best. you worry about your starting unit first, and then move down the bench to fill in the holes. and believe, with garnett, there wouldn't be many holes. all of that said, there is going to be somebody remaining on this kings team who could assist a player like kevin garnett in bringing a championship to sacramento. given his age, it is important that somebody's left, because you get kevin garnett in order to win now. and i don't think anybody hear is going to say no to a core of garnett, artest, bibby/wells.

I don't see why people are getting so upset over differing opinions. It's not like this is really gonna happen anyway for a wide variety of reasons.

Garnett, if truly available, is going to have a huge number of teams trying to figure out a way to get him. And some of those teams have much better pieces to offer than we do. This is great for TDOS debates, but the honest likelihood of Garnett ending up in a Kings uniform is slim at best.

The main reason Garnett is so attractive is also the reason he's prohibitive to any team that already has some better than average players. His talents are huge and his impact is tremendous but his contract is GIMUNGOUS! You have Kevin Garnett and, as MInnesota has discovered, you may not be able to fill the rest of the roster with the players you need to make your team TRULY competitive. Look at the rest of the Minnesota roster.

In addition, Mike Bibby has a trade kicker in his contract. If he didn't waive the provisions, that means he would be entitled to receive a large cash payment of the remainder of his contract up front.

I know a lot of you will immediately jump on my comments, but I honestly think Garnett is just too rich for our blood.

 

[nbrans]

Webber is making as much as Garnett, you didn't have a problem paying him. And yet Garnett is five times the player of Webber right now. What gives?

 

[Padrino]

I don't see why people are getting so upset over differing opinions. It's not like this is really gonna happen anyway for a wide variety of reasons.

Garnett, if truly available, is going to have a huge number of teams trying to figure out a way to get him. And some of those teams have much better pieces to offer than we do. This is great for TDOS debates, but the honest likelihood of Garnett ending up in a Kings uniform is slim at best.

The main reason Garnett is so attractive is also the reason he's prohibitive to any team that already has some better than average players. His talents are huge and his impact is tremendous but his contract is GIMUNGOUS! You have Kevin Garnett and, as MInnesota has discovered, you may not be able to fill the rest of the roster with the players you need to make your team TRULY competitive. Look at the rest of the Minnesota roster.

In addition, Mike Bibby has a trade kicker in his contract. If he didn't waive the provisions, that means he would be entitled to receive a large cash payment of the remainder of his contract up front.

I know a lot of you will immediately jump on my comments, but I honestly think Garnett is just too rich for our blood.

i'm not gonna jump all over your comments, but because you must give as much salary as you take back in nba trades, the kings would be in no worse situation with kevin garnett than without. in fact, garnett's deal ends in three years anyway, so its not as big of an albatross as people seem to think. if you don't win in three years, oh well. it gets even better, though. garnett's deal ends a year sooner than kenny thomas', and if thomas were involved in the deal, then we would have already shed some salary for the future. point is, you'd have garnett for three good years, and given that the state of the cap won't have changed much (no expiring deals in the near future outside of corliss williamson's), you'd have just as much to spend on filling out the roster as you would without kevin garnett. what's more, we'd be a more appealing team to come to with kevin garnett and ron artest, and mid-tier free agents (*cough*joel pryzbilla*cough*) might be more inclined to sign with the kings for the MLE. and wait, it still gets better! if in three years, whether you've won or not, you decide not to re-sign kevin garnett--or at least give him a huge paycut--the kings suddenly become a HUGE player in the free agent market, as they shed a HUGE amount of salary all at once, as opposed to over time. as for $$$ in general, its no object here if the maloofs are commited to winning. if they aren't, well screw it all. we might as well stop talking about championship aspirations because it won't happen with reluctant owners who will no longer pay for the superstars that win titles. however, i don't think the maloofs are reluctant anymore. if they wanna win, and i believe they do, and garnett's available, they will pursue him with all available resources at their disposal. they won't mind ponying up the money to satisfy bibby's trade kicker if he were involved in the deal, either.

but of course, you are right about it all being a pipe dream. i am certainly not upset over this kind of talk. i'm just trying to understand the logic of the other side of the argument...cuz i don't see it.

 

[VF21]

Webber is making as much as Garnett, you didn't have a problem paying him. And yet Garnett is five times the player of Webber right now. What gives?

Apples and orangutans, my friend.

We got Webber in a trade relatively cheaply. It was when he resigned that he made the BIG BUCKS.

We won't get Kevin Garnett cheaply. We'll give up a lot for him.

Padrino - He makes a humongous amount of money. ONE PLAYER is making about as much as any three or four others once you get out of the top tiers. That really restricts your options for the rest of the team.

As I said before, look at the Minnesota roster - realGM trade checker makes it really obvious.

Have you ever played virtual GM? You have a set amount of money to spend. You have to fill your roster. If you spend it all on one or two players, you're really in deep dooty when you have to fill the rest of your slots. This becomes especially critical if you have to replace expiring contracts, etc. The drop-off in talent can be disastrous.

We'll simply agree to disagree. I don't think the Kings can afford to get Kevin Garnett for a variety of reasons. If Petrie, however, could find a way to make it work, I'm sure I'd be satisfied. The scenarios I've seen brought up so far, however, don't look to me like the type Petrie AND the Maloofs would do.

Remember, I've been wishing for Kevin Garnett in Kings purple for a very long time. I just think I'm being realistic about not selling the wagon to get a better horse to pull the wagon you just sold.

 

[whozit]

Great. So Bibby has a trade kicker. Garnett has a trade kicker.

Makes them both more expensive. Not sure that if they both took it, it would void the deal.

VF21, you could be very right about being too expensive and I think definatly right about being slim at best.

 

[Padrino]

Apples and orangutans, my friend.

We got Webber in a trade relatively cheaply. It was when he resigned that he made the BIG BUCKS.

We won't get Kevin Garnett cheaply. We'll give up a lot for him.

Padrino - He makes a humongous amount of money. ONE PLAYER is making about as much as any three or four others once you get out of the top tiers. That really restricts your options for the rest of the team.

As I said before, look at the Minnesota roster - realGM trade checker makes it really obvious.

Have you ever played virtual GM? You have a set amount of money to spend. You have to fill your roster. If you spend it all on one or two players, you're really in deep dooty when you have to fill the rest of your slots. This becomes especially critical if you have to replace expiring contracts, etc. The drop-off in talent can be disastrous.

We'll simply agree to disagree. I don't think the Kings can afford to get Kevin Garnett for a variety of reasons. If Petrie, however, could find a way to make it work, I'm sure I'd be satisfied. The scenarios I've seen brought up so far, however, don't look to me like the type Petrie AND the Maloofs would do.

Remember, I've been wishing for Kevin Garnett in Kings purple for a very long time. I just think I'm being realistic about not selling the wagon to get a better horse to pull the wagon you just sold.

come now, i'm not gonna let you off the hook that easily.

with garnett, you'd have an established core. we've talked about this core much in the last few days. since bibby is the hot topic recently for being included in the trade, we'll say he goes. so, let's say we trade bibby, miller, thomas, and the 19th pick to the t-wolves in order to get kevin garnett. let's also say that we take back marko jaric's and eddie griffin's contracts to match salaries (this trade works by the numbers, according to realgm.com). that leaves us with:

C: Eddie Griffin
PF: Kevin Garnett
SF: Ron Artest
SG: Bonzi Wells
PG: Marko Jaric

6th: Shareef Abdur-Rahim
7th: Kevin Martin
8th: Francisco Garcia
9th: Jason Hart
10th: Sergei Monia
11th: Corliss Williamson
12th: Ronnie Price
13th: Vitaly Potapenko
14th: Jamal Sampson

now, the obvious weaknesses are at the starting C and PG positions. however, this team, as it stands, is competitve. waive sampson, make a very strong and concerted effort to sign joel pryzbilla with the MLE, and you've got yourself a title contender, with pryzbilla starting at C and griffin backing him up. i'm not saying minnesota bites on this deal, but i am saying that if i--a lowly fan--can construct a conceivable scenario in which the kings trade for kevin garnett and can still field a title contender, then i'm certain a smart guy like petrie can do it even better.

money tied up in one guy or three guys makes no difference if the one guy is better than the other three. i've said it before and i'll say it again, kevin garnett is a cure-all. you lose a couple talented guys in bibby and miller, but you gain back much more, regardless of salary. bibby's contract runs its course in 2009, the same offseason as garnett's, but miller's goes til 2010, as does kenny thomas'. when garnett's contract expires, and if that contract belonged to the kings, the kings would be able to unload more salary than they would had miller, bibby, and thomas remained with the team. this is an incredibly beneficial upside in a trade in which you're already getting a superstar. money's not the issue here at all. it's the depth of the team that you field around garnett that is the issue. however, i believe that a title contender could easily be constructed given one of the trade scenarios discussed.

 

[Bricklayer]

Oh, one more time: poppycock. Which is a nice way of saying bull poop. Which is a nice way of saying...

Here is what Kevin Garnett's "monster" contract is:

$20,000,000 in 06-07

Meanwhile in 06-07:

KT: $6,720,000
Corliss: $6,500,000
Reef: $5,400,000
Hart: $1,680,000
TOT: $20,300,000

THAT's how onerous that supposed puinitive pinning awful can't deal with it contract is -- the same as a pile of spare parts. No more, no less.

Let's assume the KG for Bibby/Brad/KT deal were the deal. You know where that leaves our confirmed salaries at by 07-08 after Hart, Potapenko and Corliss all end?:

KG: $22,000,000
Ron: $7,800,000
Reef: $5,800,000
Kevin: $1,800,000
Garcia: $1,160,000
-------------------
$38,560,000 for 5 of our top 8 players.

So, ooh...we need to find 3 more rotation guys with $22 million dollars! Even if you assume:
Bonzi $9,000,000

That still leaves you at $47 million, some $13+ mil under the salary cap and our current payroll, with 3/4 of your rotation taken care of.

Such a contract is a restriction on your ability to be stupid and sign or trade for bad contracts. Its very little restriction on us at all of putting together one heck of a team.

Let me hypotetically fill out the 07-08 squad with current or projected salaries:

C -- Pryz: $5,400,000 (MLE)
PF -- KG: $22,000,000
SF -- Ron: $7,800,000
OG -- Bonzi $9,000,000
PG -- Jaric: $6,000,000 (throw in)
6th -- Reef: $5,800,000
7th -- Kevin: $1,800,000
8th -- Garcia: $1,160,000
9th -- Price: min = $700,00?
10th -- solid vet with an LLE $2,000,000
11th -- 2007 1st round pick (late) $1,000,000
12th -- 2007 2nd rnd pick or camp invite $300,000

TOTAL: $62,960,000 Right at or just above the likely salary cap that year. Its not that hard to do. And its one hell of a squad.

 

[nbrans]

I mean, Dallas hasn't found Keith Van Horn's $15 million contract an impediment, nor has Miami blinked at (over)paying Shaq $20 million for the next five years.

 

[kingkung]

I put him (and Przybilla and Blount) on my NBA 2K6 team (minus Miller, Bonzi, and KT)... and I just can't win... repeated losses to both the Spurs and the Heat. They must have set his endurance level low, because he gets tired really easily. And don't even get me started on Przy.

 

[VF21]

Oh, one more time: poppycock. Which is a nice way of saying bull poop. Which is a nice way of saying...

Here is what Kevin Garnett's "monster" contract is:

$20,000,000 in 06-07

Meanwhile in 06-07:

KT: $6,720,000
Corliss: $6,500,000
Reef: $5,400,000
Hart: $1,680,000
TOT: $20,300,000

THAT's how onerous that supposed puinitive pinning awful can't deal with it contract is -- the same as a pile of spare parts. No more, no less.

Let's assume the KG for Bibby/Brad/KT deal were the deal. You know where that leaves our confirmed salaries at by 07-08 after Hart, Potapenko and Corliss all end?:

KG: $22,000,000
Ron: $7,800,000
Reef: $5,800,000
Kevin: $1,800,000
Garcia: $1,160,000
-------------------
$38,560,000 for 5 of our top 8 players.

So, ooh...we need to find 3 more rotation guys with $22 million dollars! Even if you assume:
Bonzi $9,000,000

That still leaves you at $47 million, some $13+ mil under the salary cap and our current payroll, with 3/4 of your rotation taken care of.

Such a contract is a restriction on your ability to be stupid and sign or trade for bad contracts. Its very little restriction on us at all of putting together one heck of a team.

Let me hypotetically fill out the 07-08 squad with current or projected salaries:

C -- Pryz: $5,400,000 (MLE)
PF -- KG: $22,000,000
SF -- Ron: $7,800,000
OG -- Bonzi $9,000,000
PG -- Jaric: $6,000,000 (throw in)
6th -- Reef: $5,800,000
7th -- Kevin: $1,800,000
8th -- Garcia: $1,160,000
9th -- Price: min = $700,00?
10th -- solid vet with an LLE $2,000,000
11th -- 2007 1st round pick (late) $1,000,000
12th -- 2007 2nd rnd pick or camp invite $300,000

TOTAL: $62,960,000 Right at or just above the likely salary cap that year. Its not that hard to do. And its one hell of a squad.

You seem sold on Jaric. I'm nowhere near convinced he's that good. And that's the 2007/2008 lineup? Are you giving away a whole year?

It's TDOS and we're talking hypotheticals. I honestly believe there are a myriad of reasons Garnett won't come to the Kings. In all honesty, I don't think he's going anywhere...and we've seen NOTHING from anyone besides some rumors to indicate otherwise. So, with that proviso in mind, all of this is a simple TDOS exercise anyway.

As I said, IF Petrie found a way to do it, I'm pretty sure I'd be happy with the result. But I don't think any of the proposals so far are going to whet Petrie's appetite IF - and here's the big one - Kevin McHale would even talk to him.

I was answering a question. I've answered it. You guys can continue to debate this to your heart's content.

 

[Padrino]

You seem sold on Jaric. I'm nowhere near convinced he's that good. And that's the 2007/2008 lineup? Are you giving away a whole year?

It's TDOS and we're talking hypotheticals. I honestly believe there are a myriad of reasons Garnett won't come to the Kings. In all honesty, I don't think he's going anywhere...and we've seen NOTHING from anyone besides some rumors to indicate otherwise. So, with that proviso in mind, all of this is a simple TDOS exercise anyway.

As I said, IF Petrie found a way to do it, I'm pretty sure I'd be happy with the result. But I don't think any of the proposals so far are going to whet Petrie's appetite IF - and here's the big one - Kevin McHale would even talk to him.

I was answering a question. I've answered it. You guys can continue to debate this to your heart's content.

jaric's not that good. he's certainly not worth what he's being paid. but given that its a contract minnesota may be interested in ridding themselves of, i'd be willing to take it on, as he'd be a sufficient PG given what we would need him to do.

now, i hate to ask, but do you honestly believe that any trade that brings kevin garnett to the kings won't whet geoff petrie's appetite?



KG's the big man of every GM's dreams, but especially a guy like GP, who loves multi-talented big men who operate well in the high-post offense. KG in his prime is about a step above chris webber in his prime. its certainly close, but i give garnett the edge, and i'm sure petrie does, too. i don't claim to know petrie's mind, but i'm certain he would inquire about garnett's status given the opportunity, and would do what is necessary to attempt to acquire him if he was, in fact, available.

 

[whozit]

You seem sold on Jaric. I'm nowhere near convinced he's that good. And that's the 2007/2008 lineup? Are you giving away a whole year?

I think your right on Jaric. It appears he wasn't all he was advertised. Cost of doing the trade. Hopefully he doesn't have to do much more than bring the ball up.

I also don't think the Kings get by with taking only one bad contract back. Someone posted Griffin but I don't think his contract is bad enough as a throw in to make Minnesota happy.

It's TDOS and we're talking hypotheticals. I honestly believe there are a myriad of reasons Garnett won't come to the Kings. In all honesty, I don't think he's going anywhere...and we've seen NOTHING from anyone besides some rumors to indicate otherwise. So, with that proviso in mind, all of this is a simple TDOS exercise anyway.

I think it was the source that raised eyebrows but even still the initial rumor didn't make logistical sense. So yes, this is probably simple musings. It's evening, the humidity is up so why not?

But back to the original question, "is a single player the answer?" No. It depends on all the "other" details. In other words, if was a straight deal for Garnett in exchange for Bibby and Brad with the rest of the roster filled with filler, that wouldn't be enough.

 

[nbrans]

Jaric sucks and he's overpaid, but it's one of those situations where if you're going to take on a bad contract in a trade for a superstar you might as well take on someone who kinda sorta fills a need. If the Kings included Bibby in a Garnett trade, Jaric plugs the point guard hole. He's not very good, but he'd do until the Kings found someone better.

If the Kings have to take on a bad contract, though, I'd rather have Blount.

 

[whozit]

^^^^ Would you take both? I could see that being the sweetner that seals the deal. It would leave them in the neighborhood of $52 million before their draft picks allowing them to use the MLE w/o going into tax territory.

 

[nbrans]

^^^^ Would you take both? I could see that being the sweetner that seals the deal. It would leave them in the neighborhood of $52 million before their draft picks allowing them to use the MLE w/o going into tax territory.

I'd probably do this:

Sacramento outgoing:
Bibby
Thomas
Miller
Corliss

Incoming:
Garnett
Jaric
Blount