Kings active in trade talks?
- Thread starter The_Jamal
- Start date
- Status
That's actually why he would be a problem. Vasquez isn't going to stick around in Chicago to be a backup, and Chicago wouldn't want to pay him what it took to make that happen anyway. So the best guy (pending MT pulling his head out) you are sending them for a young guy they like, is surely going to leave next year, and they won't get anything out of it. At least if Greivis was on a 2 yr deal they could trade him over the summer to recover value.
I have often been accused of not liking Isaiah, which may even be true to some degree. Selfish gunners are not my thing. But the idea that we would throw him in to get a guy like Taj Gibson..at a certain point you really do have to look at the numbers here and realize that 18ppg scorers don't grow on trees, and that he's quite good in his current role.
Good call. Forgot about Parsons. Either way, he's in line for a likely $8mil+ deal. SF has tremendous talent at the top, but it's incredibly weak in depth. Heck, Parsons might be a top 10 SF already. Hou actually has him for 900k next season too.
Either way, I agree on his value. If u can get of Hayes or thornton and get a quality player future player back, perhaps that would be worth it. Idk what that player would look like though
Either way, I agree on his value. If u can get of Hayes or thornton and get a quality player future player back, perhaps that would be worth it. Idk what that player would look like though
Their scrubs, and those are usually hard to get value for as they arguably have negative value. I already anticipate seeing both of their mugs for another year unless they are a part of a larger package that sees us giving up a little bit of value. Of course this is all if they don't start playing noticeably better
i don't think they would, either, but kings fans should probably brace themselves for the likelihood that the new regime considers no king untouchable outside of demarcus cousins and ben mclemore. and i simply do not believe that isaiah thomas will have a future in sacramento as a starter. IT is planted rather firmly in the sixth man role, given that his ball dominant nature distracts from what the new regime is attempting to build with cousins and mclemore as it's starting points for a rebuild...
that said, the question the kings' front office has to answer is whether or not they'd like to have their 6th man role cemented for the next several years, or if they'd rather pursue a starter-quality talent using thomas as trade bait. the size of IT's contract is scant, but when packaged with a larger contract, he becomes the centerpiece of any trade, especially if he continues to perform so well. he's an asset, and a tremendously movable one. i like him in his 6th man role, and i hope he sticks around, but i'd hardly assume that he won't be traded, at this point...
that said, the question the kings' front office has to answer is whether or not they'd like to have their 6th man role cemented for the next several years, or if they'd rather pursue a starter-quality talent using thomas as trade bait. the size of IT's contract is scant, but when packaged with a larger contract, he becomes the centerpiece of any trade, especially if he continues to perform so well. he's an asset, and a tremendously movable one. i like him in his 6th man role, and i hope he sticks around, but i'd hardly assume that he won't be traded, at this point...
Interesting. Waiters for Deng makes sense for both teams--Bulls will probably lose Deng after this year anyway, and this year is a lost season without Rose. Why not get a potential SG of the future? The Cavs, meanwhile, want to win now, and Waiters and Irving supposedly don't get along.
Kings could facilitate by sending Salmons' expiring to Bulls--we'd have to take someone from Cleveland to match, maybe Varejao? Seems like we'd be getting a lot of value, though. Sending, say, a Jimmer or Patterson to Chicago or Cleveland likely wouldn't be enough.
Kings could facilitate by sending Salmons' expiring to Bulls--we'd have to take someone from Cleveland to match, maybe Varejao? Seems like we'd be getting a lot of value, though. Sending, say, a Jimmer or Patterson to Chicago or Cleveland likely wouldn't be enough.
If they move IT at this juncture I think it will be for 1 primary reason - to make a run at beating out utah/Milwaukee etc and completing the tank. Besides cousins , IT is the only king that changes the complexion of games in a positive fashion
Personally I don't think he's going anywhere, as legit 6th men of year candidates who are loved throughout the organization are usuAlly hard to get equal value for
Personally I don't think he's going anywhere, as legit 6th men of year candidates who are loved throughout the organization are usuAlly hard to get equal value for
I agree with both points. When McCallum was drafted instead of a big guy, I thought he was meant to take IT's place. Whether that is a fact I don't know but I thought it odd we drafted a pg. Now there are question marks around Vasquez. I could very well see the team packaging IT with another player to upgrade at another position, hopefully a defensive presence near the rim. IT has value and I am sure not just to us. In the end, I think the "shot blocker" type is more valuable than IT especially if it furthers the tank by weakening us for just one year.
It's all speculation, isn't it?
It's all speculation, isn't it?
- Status