Kings active in trade talks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
pshn80 said:
Voison this morning wrote that the Kings seriously considered Miller and have now dropped the idea.
Click to expand...

You don't say?

Oddly enough, I'm OK with this. Miller doesn't give us much at this stage, and probably isn't good enough to move IT to the bench. He is a better set up man, but on offense, he's more useful inside.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hoovtrain said:
I didn't realize this trade thread had turned into a draft thread.
Click to expand...

It is very difficult this year to remove from your memory banks what might be picked in the draft and at the same time discuss trades. They are inter-related especially mid-season

And ...... Voison this morning wrote that the Kings seriously considered Miller and have now dropped the idea. What other trade seems to be in the works?
 
I hope we don't give up a second round draft pick for a retiring Andre Miller who is years past his prime.
I think people sometimes forget that second round picks can become extremely good basketball players and even at times all-stars. Not to mention that this is a stacked draft.

Hinrich for Thornton or Jimmer would be a good move. Idk how the salaries work out though. Hinrich is a high energy pg who is a big hustler and brings great offensive and defensive awareness off the bench. I've always liked his game and thought he was a perfect 6th man. Again, Chicago would probably ask for Jimmer and a second round pick.

As for the talk about Jabari Parker, my only worry is that he's a Mormon and has expressed his devotion to missionaries. His mom controls a lot of his life and she's heavily urging him to go on a 2 year hiatus after being drafted. I have a hard time seeing him leave for a missionary when he has the potential to be one of the greatest of all time. Funny thing is, most GM's said they'd still take him too 5 even if he went on a 2 year missionary. Albeit, I've known a couple of hs athletes that were my close friends that went on a missionary and never returned to be the same caliber.
Saying this, if Parker doesn't go, I think he's a very down to earth and rounded kid unlike Melo comparison who is selfish and someone I've always hated watching over the years. Anyone remember Denver with Melo and Iverson? That had to of been the biggest joke a team ever created. He's a good kid who is already NBA ready and will average 20+ ppg in his first season in the NBA no matter which team picks him. I don't see him going lower than #3 pick period


Saying all this, I'd still take Wiggins no matter what. If wiggins puts some muscle on like many expect, he'll have Lebron caliber ceiling.
Wiggins is a player who can potentially take over games in the future like a Lebron or Kobe. Because of his elite athleticism and core body movement, I think he will also avoid a lot of injuries in his future. He just needs to add more weight. He also reminds me a lot of Ben Mac personality wise. I think they would get along well.

Saying all this, our chances of #1-3 are not looking good currently so I wouldn't mind a Marcus Smart who blew up the other night or an Exum who will become a 20-5-5 pg. Then, you have guys who are expected to be 7-15 who will be potential all-stars as well depending how much work they put in. I think this is the most stacked draft thus far which can also be the draft with the most flops ever, sadly.
 
Wiggins is very talented but I absolutely guarantee he will never get close to LeBrons level (or Kobe's for that matter, obviously). Doesn't have that kind of talent, nor mentality. Doesn't mean he can't be a legit two-way star, however. His ceiling isn't as high because he doesn't have the ability - LeBrons only weakness coming out of HS was his shooting.
 
Hadlowe said:
So was Jason Kidd. I am flat against going out and getting Miller, despite really liking him as a player, but would acquiesce if it meant dumping salary for Thornton or JT.

Fundamentals can be taught. Plays can be taught. BBIQ is something you either have or you don't. Howard Eisley never made the leap to a top-tier point guard, despite being mentored by one of the greatest point guards of all time. You just can't teach people to see the seams and passing lanes before they open up and make those snap judgments. It's why the Steve Youngs and John Elways of the world are so rare.
Click to expand...

Look, your not born with BBIQ. You learn it! Now I agree that if you started playing basketball at age 5, or perhaps your father was an NBA player, or coach, you probably have a pretty good grasp on how to play the game. I also agree that some players are brighter than others, or some players care more than others. But you don't get if from an injection, or by reading about it. However, you can learn a lot from an experienced player, if your willing to learn. Just because Howard Eisley didn't learn much, has nothing to do with any other player in the league. They are after all, individuals, each with his own personality and desires.

Its much easier to learn by watching someone actually do it, than to read about it, or be told how to do it. Now I don't know if Miller is the answer to our prayers, but he is a good floor leader, and does have great BBIQ. I wouldn't mind having him for a year or so, just to see how much of that wisdom he can impart to McCallum.
 
fanop said:
When I said slow, I meant on defense. No doubt, the best offensive player in this upcoming draft. He's a good athlete, I never discredited him for that. I just believe he's not a good defender. I'm not sure if he'll be able to guard SFs in the NBA. He reminds me a lot of Melo, except not as athletic. He's going to give you 20 points, but give up 20 at the same time. I think he needs to add a little more muscle, but his size is about right for a SF.
Click to expand...

How in the world can you pass judgement on an 18 year old player, that every NBA scout says is going to be a great player? You tell me how many highschool players, even those considered can't miss players, come into college looking like great defensive players. Defense is all about desire, along with ability. Parker certainly is a very good athlete, and anyone that thinks otherwise, either hasn't seen him play, or doesn't know what he's talking about. I remember having arguments with some idiots that said Griffin wasn't a good athlete, when he was at Oklahoma. I had arguments with some idiots that told me that Harden wasn't athletic. I'm sick and tired of arguing with people that watch one game, and then predict how a player is going to turn out. There are players that I've seen play 20 or more times, and I won't predict their future.

I'll tell you why if your interested. Because I can't measure their desire. I don't know how hard their willing to work. That's why I was reluctant to get too excited about Drummond. In his case, he was willing to work hard and improve. Point is, you just never know. But I do know, that if Parker has the work ethic to go along with his talent, he's going to be a star in the league, and perhaps a superstar. And if you have a chance to draft a superstar, you draft him. How many people thought Durant would be a good defender coming out of Texas? Would you have passed on him? What a bunch of nonsense!
 
Glenn said:
Perhaps different people are using this ambiguous term, BBIQ, in different ways. I never thought of it as something that could be taught although I admit I am stuck on the use of the term IQ as IQ is something a person is born with and not taught. Perhaps there should be terms like BBIQ and BBKnowledge as in my mind they can be different things.
Click to expand...

BBIQ refers to a players knowledge of how to play the game. Some players just have a natural feel for the game, and if they're also blessed with athleticism and skills, they generally turn out to be very good players. I don't think it possible to be born with BBIQ, unless your born with a basketball in your hands. So its a learning experience. And like just about everything, the longer you've been doing something, the better you should be at it. But you do have to have talent to go along with the IQ. Many times you'll find that players with the most BBIQ are also some of the least athletic players. They've had to work harder because of their limitations in other areas. Thus their called crafty veterans, or overachievers. In general they take the time to learn the game. They study their opponent and know all his tendency's. They look for any advantage they can find. Obviously, having a high IQ, helps to have a high BBIQ.
 
Obviously this is all hypothetical and we would have to be pretty fortunate, but has anyone toyed with the notion of drafting Wiggins with the plan of playing him at SG? His athleticism and quickness at that position wouldn't be an issue in terms of defending, his weight wouldn't be as much of a disadvantage against NBA SGs, and his height and length would be a tremendous advantage over his opponent. We would have Wiggins, Gay, and Cousins as our "big 3." We would most likely have to trade McLemore (for the record, I'm one of those guys who still has faith in McLemore). We might be able to snatch a solid shotblocker considering how much potential McLemore has. Food for thought I guess…
 
Dime Dropper said:
I think Carmelo is a good comparison. People will hear that and take it as a negative, but they're two different people, Jabari has a higher basketball IQ and isn't going to bring the attitude problems that Melo sometimes does. I think Carmelo was probably slightly quicker in college than Jabari is (though Carmelo is a lot heavier, and slower, now than he was at Syracuse). I think besides that, Parker is a better athlete overall. I think Parker is very strong already, he just doesn't look it as his body is a bit soft. I think losing 10-15lbs might actually help Jabari a lot, though then again it may not.
Click to expand...

I've always look at Parker as a cross between Pierce and Melo. He shares some of the same traits with both players. He can post you up like Melo, but he shoots the ball from the outside like Pierce. He handles the ball very well, and rebounds the ball well. I think he has better ability to create his own shot better than Pierce did coming out of college, and he has better BBIQ than Melo. Offensively, there's just not a lot he can't do, including passing the ball. Once in the NBA, where he'll spend considerable time in the weight room, and getting in better shape, he'll be a force to be reckoned with. Someone mentioned his being a Mormon. I'd worry more about that had he gone to BYU, where its almost expected. Hmmm, let me see, has any good college basketball player recently come out of BYU that ddn't go on a mission? Hmmm!
 
I tend to disagree.

Someone could be very good at something but have a low intelligence overall. When watching games you can tell the players with high IQs when you see them out-think opponents and use it to their advantage. Just knowing the game really well isn't enough. Guys like Iverson, and Carmello are guys that look(ed) like they have low BBIQ.

Guys like Lebron, and Kobe are all high BBIQ guys. There are also players who aren't as gifted athletically who use their IQ to get by on and stay in the league for years and years.

Anyhow, we will just agree to disagree here. I just think knowledge and IQ are two different things.
 
bajaden said:
BBIQ refers to a players knowledge of how to play the game. Some players just have a natural feel for the game, and if they're also blessed with athleticism and skills, they generally turn out to be very good players. I don't think it possible to be born with BBIQ, unless your born with a basketball in your hands. So its a learning experience. And like just about everything, the longer you've been doing something, the better you should be at it. But you do have to have talent to go along with the IQ. Many times you'll find that players with the most BBIQ are also some of the least athletic players. They've had to work harder because of their limitations in other areas. Thus their called crafty veterans, or overachievers. In general they take the time to learn the game. They study their opponent and know all his tendency's. They look for any advantage they can find. Obviously, having a high IQ, helps to have a high BBIQ.
Click to expand...

My main concern was that people were throwing the word around and I doubt if we all have the same definition of what that means.

When I was born, I was not as intelligent as I am now but IQ in the world I live in is not something you learn. You are free to understand it anyway you wish. BBIQ seems to be a word thrown around just to sound intelligent. I am not saying you do that because I know better but others use it too freely.

Some people are better athletes than others and there is a limit as to how far they can go with their particular level of athleticism no matter how hard they work or who trains them. I see BBIQ as being similar. All the work and training in the world will not give a person the BBIQ of the best players. Part of it is inherent and yes, as with IQ, it is different at birth (if it could be measured.)
 
Bricklayer said:
Ha!

Good try by the gerbil, but sorry, fraid we're likely stuck with that on anything short of a blockbuster.
Click to expand...

Is it not true that this must mean that the Kings want to trade Fredette and Outlaw to match salaries as opposed to a straight up deal of Thornton for Miller? I don't see Denver as being very able to be picky.
 
Gary said:
I tend to disagree.

Someone could be very good at something but have a low intelligence overall. When watching games you can tell the players with high IQs when you see them out-think opponents and use it to their advantage. Just knowing the game really well isn't enough. Guys like Iverson, and Carmello are guys that look(ed) like they have low BBIQ.

Guys like Lebron, and Kobe are all high BBIQ guys. There are also players who aren't as gifted athletically who use their IQ to get by on and stay in the league for years and years.

Anyhow, we will just agree to disagree here. I just think knowledge and IQ are two different things.
Click to expand...

I don't think we disagree at all. All you did was define what I said. I didn't say you couldn't be good at something without being intelligent, but if your intelligent, you'll be better. BBIQ is like anything else. You can have it, but not use it at times for a variety of reasons. Some selfish, some possibly lazy, and some times just no desire. Anthony has good BBIQ, but that doesn't stop him from doing stupid things at times. Its like anything else thats a tool. Just because you have it, doesn't mean you going to use. The smartest people in the world have been known to walk into lampposts.
 
Gary said:
I tend to disagree.

Someone could be very good at something but have a low intelligence overall. When watching games you can tell the players with high IQs when you see them out-think opponents and use it to their advantage. Just knowing the game really well isn't enough. Guys like Iverson, and Carmello are guys that look(ed) like they have low BBIQ.

Guys like Lebron, and Kobe are all high BBIQ guys. There are also players who aren't as gifted athletically who use their IQ to get by on and stay in the league for years and years.

Anyhow, we will just agree to disagree here. I just think knowledge and IQ are two different things.
Click to expand...

In psychology, knowledge and IQ ARE defined as two different things.

My IQ and knowledge gave me the ability to get into a varity of schools. Being in those various schools taught me a lot of knowledge. I would never have gotten into all the schools without a certain IQ.
 
Glenn said:
My main concern was that people were throwing the word around and I doubt if we all have the same definition of what that means.

When I was born, I was not as intelligent as I am now but IQ in the world I live in is not something you learn. You are free to understand it anyway you wish. BBIQ seems to be a word thrown around just to sound intelligent. I am not saying you do that because I know better but others use it too freely.

Some people are better athletes than others and there is a limit as to how far they can go with their particular level of athleticism no matter how hard they work or who trains them. I see BBIQ as being similar. All the work and training in the world will not give a person the BBIQ of the best players. Part of it is inherent and yes, as with IQ, it is different at birth (if it could be measured.)
Click to expand...

Well to quibble a bit, Larry Bird wasn't the greatest athlete in the world, but he was one of the best players in the world. Aside from his ability to shoot the ball better than most, it was his understanding of the game of basketball that made him such a great player. See I believe that a player with limited abilities can be a good NBA player because of his BBIQ, a term I'm quickly getting sick of. Andre Miller has never been a great athlete, but he gets anywhere he wants on the floor because he understands the game. He understands defenses, and as a result of knowing, his eyes see things that others don't see. Its sort of like a great quarterback reading defenses. The great one's see things that the others don't. Right now, McLemore is like a new born baby. In a couple of years, if he puts in the work, he'll be an entirely different player. As far as just plain IQ goes, I agree, your born with that capacity. But there are a lot of high IQ people in the world that are just plain stupid. Its a tool just like running fast. If you don't put it to use, its worthless.
 
Might help to think of basketball IQ in terms if intincts. All the truly great players instinctively know when to do something and when not to, how to do something and how not to, where and where not to etc.. That's what people mean when they say someone has a "feel" for the game. They make the right plays at the right time in a variety of ways (passing, shooting etc.).

Looking at someone like LeBron.... Woah hold the phone! Van Gundy just said Sacramento are his new favourite team to watch, fascinating, talented and always look like they're about to implode. We have players if they can just gel. Fascinating to watch us evolve.

Anywho... Looking at someone like LeBron. He's not just an incredible player because of his freak athleticism and and tangible skills. But his IQ on the court is extremely high. An example which happened earlier in this game against Brooklyn: Had the ball on the perimeter, faked a 3 and got his defender in the air, went to shoot to try to draw the foul but the defender avoided him, before releasing the ball he fired a pass to Rashard Lewis who was near him on the perimeter and immediately made a hard cut to the basket before his defender had even landed. Got the ball back for an easy +1. Just an example, but the vast majority of players in the NBA wouldn't have made that play. Required a series of split second decisions, each of them executed to perfection. That's one example of a high IQ play. He didn't think about it, it was instinct.
 
Dime Dropper said:
Might help to think of basketball IQ in terms if intincts. All the truly great players instinctively know when to do something and when not to, how to do something and how not to, where and where not to etc.. That's what people mean when they say someone has a "feel" for the game. They make the right plays at the right time in a variety of ways (passing, shooting etc.).

Looking at someone like LeBron.... Woah hold the phone! Van Gundy just said Sacramento are his new favourite team to watch, fascinating, talented and always look like they're about to implode. We have players if they can just gel. Fascinating to watch us evolve.

Anywho... Looking at someone like LeBron. He's not just an incredible player because of his freak athleticism and and tangible skills. But his IQ on the court is extremely high. An example which happened earlier in this game against Brooklyn: Had the ball on the perimeter, faked a 3 and got his defender in the air, went to shoot to try to draw the foul but the defender avoided him, before releasing the ball he fired a pass to Rashard Lewis who was near him on the perimeter and immediately made a hard cut to the basket before his defender had even landed. Got the ball back for an easy +1. Just an example, but the vast majority of players in the NBA wouldn't have made that play. Required a series of split second decisions, each of them executed to perfection. That's one example of a high IQ play. He didn't think about it, it was instinct.
Click to expand...

He probably thought about that scenario before, over and over again, which gave it a chance to become instinct
 
twslam07 said:
Obviously this is all hypothetical and we would have to be pretty fortunate, but has anyone toyed with the notion of drafting Wiggins with the plan of playing him at SG? His athleticism and quickness at that position wouldn't be an issue in terms of defending, his weight wouldn't be as much of a disadvantage against NBA SGs, and his height and length would be a tremendous advantage over his opponent. We would have Wiggins, Gay, and Cousins as our "big 3." We would most likely have to trade McLemore (for the record, I'm one of those guys who still has faith in McLemore). We might be able to snatch a solid shotblocker considering how much potential McLemore has. Food for thought I guess…
Click to expand...
If we're talking about coming up with "big 3" after this draft, Exum is a much better candidate: Wiggins is barely a level above Mclemore in terms of handles, while Exum has elite first step and handles to use it.
bajaden said:
I've always look at Parker as a cross between Pierce and Melo. He shares some of the same traits with both players. He can post you up like Melo, but he shoots the ball from the outside like Pierce. He handles the ball very well, and rebounds the ball well. I think he has better ability to create his own shot better than Pierce did coming out of college, and he has better BBIQ than Melo. Offensively, there's just not a lot he can't do, including passing the ball. Once in the NBA, where he'll spend considerable time in the weight room, and getting in better shape, he'll be a force to be reckoned with. Someone mentioned his being a Mormon. I'd worry more about that had he gone to BYU, where its almost expected. Hmmm, let me see, has any good college basketball player recently come out of BYU that ddn't go on a mission? Hmmm!
Click to expand...
After starting red hot 11-16 from outside against freshmen-filled Kansas and 2 cupcakes, he's 10-35 since. It might be a really long cold streak, or he might not be quite the shooter he looked like at the start of the season. Parker rebounds like Pierce, not like Melo. He's not a sure-fire future HOF.
ShastaKingsFan said:
Call me crazy, but I'd rather have Outlaw than Thornton
Click to expand...
I think Nuggets didn't want either and asked for Fredette.
 
Gilles said:
I think Nuggets didn't want either and asked for Fredette.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Thornton for Miller straight up doesn't work salary-wise, much less Thornton + Outlaw.

But Jimmer doesn't work straight up either, and Outlaw seems like a likely candidate to match salaries.
 
And the kings select with their #12 pick Dario Saric.

Anyone seen that lottery draft machine on ESPN? Pretty fun :b
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

venom_7
Venom_7 Doxxes | A Ghost of Christmas Past
Replies
2
Views
625
venom_7
venom_7
Tetsujin
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] Kings @ Warriors, 10/23/2022 5:30pm Pacific, 8:30pm Eastern
15 16 17
Replies
499
Views
17K
SacTownKid
SacTownKid
Tetsujin
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] Kings @ Suns, 10/27/21 7pm Pacific 10pm Eastern
18 19 20
Replies
584
Views
30K
NewArena
NewArena
Tetsujin
[Game] Kings @ Pelicans, 10/29/21 5pm Pacific 8pm Eastern
9 10 11
Replies
304
Views
12K
Mr. S£im Citrus
Mr. S£im Citrus
Tetsujin
  • Poll Poll
[Grades] Sacramento Kings (9-11) at the 20 game mark
Replies
23
Views
2K
ppine
P
Back
Top