Kings interested in trading for Iman Shumpert

[sdballer]

I was thinking of something very similar. Salmons doesn't need to be amnestied though, only $1 million of his contract next year is guaranteed so he's essentially an expiring contract now with a $1 million buyout tax. That's a drop in the bucket for just about any NBA ownership group. The trade also works with either Landry or JT, whichever one New York wants more. We'd be sacrificing a little bit of salary cap flexibility this season to get another 4 year contract of the books and add a valuable role-player. The long-term implications for us would be that we enter the new arena year with only 4-5 sizable contracts on the books (Cousins, Landry, McLemore, 2014 first round pick, 2015 first round pick). That leaves something like $25-30 million in cap space to work with that year. Enough to be the high bidder on whichever free agent fits best with our lineup at the time.

I can see New York wanting to get out of the Amare deal and adding in Thornton and Thompson/Landry at least gives them some guys they can work in to the rotation right now. They have no draft pick this year, so there's some level of urgency to start winning games. Actually, that probably rules out Landry. The sticking point here is that we're obligated to do something with Amare. At his current level of "production" he's worse than any of our current PFs (pretty hard to believe, but it's true). You don't want to overshoot this though and end up playing yourself out of a good draft pick. I would also think about packaging IT in the deal. Why? Because he makes the offer more enticing in a "win-now" context for New York, and he's probably not going to be re-signing with us anyway.

So... Amare and Shumpert for IT, Thompson, Thornton, Salmons?

Eh, that sounds like an overpay to me. Thomas and Thompson are really only assets to certain teams though. Thomas would be worth a lot more if he weren't expiring and Thompson represents a 4 year commitment. I'd be reluctant to part with both of them in one deal, but the goal here is to consolidate some future salary cap flexibilty and swap some of our current mismatched parts for another young player who should fill a need for us (wing defender, backup SG). Shumpert might be the better long-term asset here, either as part of our rotation or as another young and talented trade chip. I'm not sure I pull the trigger on that deal yet, but I'd think about it. We probably get worse in the short-term and better in the long-term, depending on how highly you value Shumpert, which is what we want right now.

That's a lot of moving parts but essentially it boils down to a swap of backups (IT for Shumpert) and combining 3 sizable contracts (1yr, 2yr, and 4yr) into one big 2 yr contract which becomes a big expiring contract in approximately 5 months.

Awful. Your insistence on getting rid of either Landry or Thompson at all costs is getting ridiculous.

 

[hrdboild]

Awful. Your insistence on getting rid of either Landry or Thompson at all costs is getting ridiculous.

I am pretty ridiculous, so I'll take it as a compliment. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't want us to sign the Landry deal in the first place and his deal is the only reason I'm so eager to trade Thompson. A rebuilding team cannot be paying $13 million a year on the backup PF position, you just can't. And I'm not even sure I like this deal all that much, I'm just throwing it out there as a "when the smoke clears" type of possibility where we lose something good (Thompson) but gain something good as well (Shumpert). I really don't think IT has long-term potential on this team anymore and I'd rather give his minutes to McCallum, so I'm also thinking about ways to get anything at all for him before it's too late.

 

[sdballer]

I am pretty ridiculous, so I'll take it as a compliment. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't want us to sign the Landry deal in the first place and his deal is the only reason I'm so eager to trade Thompson. A rebuilding team cannot be paying $13 million a year on the backup PF position, you just can't. And I'm not even sure I like this deal all that much, I'm just throwing it out there as a "when the smoke clears" type of possibility where we lose something good (Thompson) but gain something good as well (Shumpert). I really don't think IT has long-term potential on this team anymore and I'd rather give his minutes to McCallum, so I'm also thinking about ways to get anything at all for him before it's too late.

Here's the issue:

Salmons as essentially an expiring=good value
JT as proven good 3rd big on reasonable deal=good value
IT as talented, expiring trial young guy=great value
MT mostly sucks but may have value to select teams as scorer=bad value

Amare is a crap value and even as a huge expiring, he's never going to have good value as teams will have to include other bad long term deals to make the numbers work. In your scenarios, we'd be trading most of the good value just to trim 6M off the cap 2 seasons from now while trimming some of the valuable pieces we have left.

I didn't want Landry either and get your perspective on our pf situation but your proposals are so extreme in trying to solve that problem that they create other worse ones.

 

[hrdboild]

Here's the issue:

Salmons as essentially an expiring=good value
JT as proven good 3rd big on reasonable deal=good value
IT as talented, expiring trial young guy=great value
MT mostly sucks but may have value to select teams as scorer=bad value

Amare is a crap value and even as a huge expiring, he's never going to have good value as teams will have to include other bad long term deals to make the numbers work. In your scenarios, we'd be trading most of the good value just to trim 6M off the cap 2 seasons from now while trimming some of the valuable pieces we have left.

I didn't want Landry either and get your perspective on our pf situation but your proposals are so extreme in trying to solve that problem that they create other worse ones.

I think you're slightly over-valuing our current trade assets, but I don't deny I had the same 'vomitous' reaction the first time I read a trade proposal which had Amare going to the Kings. I know this one is extreme, and New York probably jumps all over it for that reason. There is some method to my madness though. Young, developing players on cheap multi-year deals are gold to teams in our situation. They're practically the only assets that are actually worth a damn. And Shumpert is well regarded around the league. With IT, unless you think overpaying him and turning him into another Thornton contract is a good idea, we have to move him ASAP while his value is still high to a team that is desperate for wins right now. Salmons' expiring? Maybe packaged with something else it has value, but usually you have to take back an even worse contract to get value out of one of those and we don't want to do that right now. Isn't Amare's contract godawful? Of course it is, but remember we also have Chuckwagon, Outlaw, Thornton, and now DWill preventing us from making any moves this off-season anyway. The 2015 off-season is the soonest we can be positioning for roster flexibility and Amare's deal actually helps us in that regard. I suspected when I posted that proposal that there would be cries of bloody murder, but think about it again. It makes at least a little sense doesn't it?

 

[bajaden]

If we want Shumpert, then lets make a straight trade for him, and not clutter it up with Amare, just to please the Knicks. Yes Amare comes off the books two years from now, but if we do nothing, Thornton, Hayes, Outlaw, and Williams come off the books two years from now to the tune of around 23 mil. In the meantime, some of the players we'd be trading in this proposal are useful players, while Amare, would probably be riding the pine. I like Shumpert, but not that much.

 

[sdballer]

I think you're slightly over-valuing our current trade assets, but I don't deny I had the same 'vomitous' reaction the first time I read a trade proposal which had Amare going to the Kings. I know this one is extreme, and New York probably jumps all over it for that reason. There is some method to my madness though. Young, developing players on cheap multi-year deals are gold to teams in our situation. They're practically the only assets that are actually worth a damn. And Shumpert is well regarded around the league. With IT, unless you think overpaying him and turning him into another Thornton contract is a good idea, we have to move him ASAP while his value is still high to a team that is desperate for wins right now. Salmons' expiring? Maybe packaged with something else it has value, but usually you have to take back an even worse contract to get value out of one of those and we don't want to do that right now. Isn't Amare's contract godawful? Of course it is, but remember we also have Chuckwagon, Outlaw, Thornton, and now DWill preventing us from making any moves this off-season anyway. The 2015 off-season is the soonest we can be positioning for roster flexibility and Amare's deal actually helps us in that regard. I suspected when I posted that proposal that there would be cries of bloody murder, but think about it again. It makes at least a little sense doesn't it?

No it doesn't because you are trading 2 expirings (one a really good young guy), one smaller deal that expires the same year and one year that extends beyond (at a reasonable price) for one of the worst contracts in the league and a decent prospect. If Amare expired this season, MAYBE you look at it as a way to get out of long term deals now but even then its a stretch.

 

[hrdboild]

No it doesn't because you are trading 2 expirings (one a really good young guy), one smaller deal that expires the same year and one year that extends beyond (at a reasonable price) for one of the worst contracts in the league and a decent prospect. If Amare expired this season, MAYBE you look at it as a way to get out of long term deals now but even then its a stretch.

Shumpert was considered untouchable as recently as a year ago. He looks like another good "buy low" commodity right now unless the knee issues are career threatening. If we could do a straight swap of IT for Shumpert I think we're coming out ahead. All that other nonsense is in case the Knicks aren't thrilled about getting a half year rental on a guy they'll then have to fork out a lot of money to re-sign. That's what kills his value. If Isaiah had even one more year on his deal (not to mention a first-rounder type of salary) this would be a lot easier to put together. Amare having one of the worst contracts in the league is a nice little sound bite, but if you look at what's actually happening behind the scenes here, he isn't costing us any more in salary cap space than the useless bench guys we're shipping out so he can be a useless bench guy himself for a brief period and then leave us room to sign somebody we actually want. Also losing Thompson and IT right now rather than another two months into the season for less productive players helps the rebuild too in an important way. I just think once you get over the initial gag reflex, his contract doesn't really hurt us in any way and the sticker shock it provides let's us clear a little salary of our own.

-shrug-

I've already put more energy into this idea than it's probably worth. But I think this is closer to the kind of deal that can actually happen in the NBA than a lot of the typical fan-made "we trade our garbage and pick up something valuable" fantasies.

 

[sdballer]

Shumpert was considered untouchable as recently as a year ago. He looks like another good "buy low" commodity right now unless the knee issues are career threatening. If we could do a straight swap of IT for Shumpert I think we're coming out ahead. All that other nonsense is in case the Knicks aren't thrilled about getting a half year rental on a guy they'll then have to fork out a lot of money to re-sign. That's what kills his value. If Isaiah had even one more year on his deal (not to mention a first-rounder type of salary) this would be a lot easier to put together. Amare having one of the worst contracts in the league is a nice little sound bite, but if you look at what's actually happening behind the scenes here, he isn't costing us any more in salary cap space than the useless bench guys we're shipping out so he can be a useless bench guy himself for a brief period and then leave us room to sign somebody we actually want. Also losing Thompson and IT right now rather than another two months into the season for less productive players helps the rebuild too in an important way. I just think once you get over the initial gag reflex, his contract doesn't really hurt us in any way and the sticker shock it provides let's us clear a little salary of our own.

-shrug-

I've already put more energy into this idea than it's probably worth. But I think this is closer to the kind of deal that can actually happen in the NBA than a lot of the typical fan-made "we trade our garbage and pick up something valuable" fantasies.

Amare isn't costing us any more?

Salmons and IT are expiring. The difference between Shump/Amare and JT/MT is almost $12M next year. Hence the reason people keep questioning your logic. We'd pay an extra $12M next year (and the salary cap room issues that creates) to save $6M in two seasons.

It doesn't make sense.

 

[hrdboild]

Amare isn't costing us any more?

Salmons and IT are expiring. The difference between Shump/Amare and JT/MT is almost $12M next year. Hence the reason people keep questioning your logic. We'd pay an extra $12M next year (and the salary cap room issues that creates) to save $6M in two seasons.

It doesn't make sense.

I don't want to hold your hand here, but yes it does. It costs us substantially more next season, granted, but add up the two seasons we're no longer paying Jason Thompson and the total money is a wash. Next season doesn't matter, we're already close to the salary cap even after Patterson, IT, Jimmr, and Salmon's deals come off the books because Cousins' extension kicks in and we have to add another first round pick. So those two years we get back -- approximately 6.4 million in extra cap space in 2015 and 6.8 million in 2016 -- mean more in terms of roster flexibility because they come at a time when we'll actually be able to use that salary cap space to go after a big name. Add Amare's deal to Chuck Hayes' all but immovable contract and Travis Outlaw's and you've got $32 million coming off the cap at once. Derrick Williams represents another $6.3 million but that comes with a cap hold if we want to retain his bird rights. Amare's contract would be an albatross for some teams, but considering we have no money to spend this off-season anyway, it really doesn't matter for us.

 

[sdballer]

I don't want to hold your hand here, but yes it does. It costs us substantially more next season, granted, but add up the two seasons we're no longer paying Jason Thompson and the total money is a wash. Next season doesn't matter, we're already close to the salary cap even after Patterson, IT, Jimmr, and Salmon's deals come off the books because Cousins' extension kicks in and we have to add another first round pick. So those two years we get back -- approximately 6.4 million in extra cap space in 2015 and 6.8 million in 2016 -- mean more in terms of roster flexibility because they come at a time when we'll actually be able to use that salary cap space to go after a big name. Add Amare's deal to Chuck Hayes' all but immovable contract and Travis Outlaw's and you've got $32 million coming off the cap at once. Derrick Williams represents another $6.3 million but that comes with a cap hold if we want to retain his bird rights. Amare's contract would be an albatross for some teams, but considering we have no money to spend this off-season anyway, it really doesn't matter for us.

JT's final year isn't fully guaranteed (only about 2.5M). And I'm not arguing that doing this deal prevents us from signing someone next year. My argument is that it doesn't maximize the cap spend we have and wastes pieces that could help us more either on the court or by getting something more valuable than Amare's deal. I repeat that your entire premise is that an extra $6M in two seasons is worth asignificant sacrifice of spend and assets.

 

[hrdboild]

JT's final year isn't fully guaranteed (only about 2.5M). And I'm not arguing that doing this deal prevents us from signing someone next year. My argument is that it doesn't maximize the cap spend we have and wastes pieces that could help us more either on the court or by getting something more valuable than Amare's deal. I repeat that your entire premise is that an extra $6M in two seasons is worth asignificant sacrifice of spend and assets.

My basic premise, if I simplified it to one thing, is that I like deals where the best player is coming to our team and I think that happens here (and no, his name is not Amare Stoudamire). As a bonus, he's also the youngest player in the trade so that's a double win. But I said up front that this is probably not the most productive way for us to use our limited assets. It's a talent grab, just an expensive one. If Shumpert develops into the star player that some people think he could be, you're going to be awfully sad you passed on trading for him because you were afraid to give up Jason Thompson, Marcus Thornton, John Salmons, and a couple months of Isaiah Thomas. Yes they represent basically all of our tradeable assets, but Shumpert is potentially more valuable than all four of those guys put together. It's similar to the Derrick Williams trade in that way. Take a shot at a young developing player. If he doesn't work out, the only thing we've really lost here is Jason Thompson and whatever potential deals could have been made with the same miscellaneous parts. And losing JT is partially mitigated by the extra salary flexibility we gain in 2015 and 2016.

 

[TheBadGuy]

According to an article somewhere, it says that the Knicks wants to trade Shumpert to the Thunder for Collison.

 

[randymoss1881]

According to an article somewhere, it says that the Knicks wants to trade Shumpert to the Thunder for Collison.

They already have thabo, lamb, and Jackson. If they want Collison then I'm sure Thompson or PP and Vasquez would be enough to entice them.

 

[sdballer]

According to an article somewhere, it says that the Knicks wants to trade Shumpert to the Thunder for Collison.

Which tells you a great deal about Shumperts value.

 

[Chubbs]

Amare isn't costing us any more?

Salmons and IT are expiring. The difference between Shump/Amare and JT/MT is almost $12M next year. Hence the reason people keep questioning your logic. We'd pay an extra $12M next year (and the salary cap room issues that creates) to save $6M in two seasons.

It doesn't make sense.

I think this scenario working is in the sense that we have to admit almost nothing in way of free agents can happen this offseason. You're looking at 2 years down the road for all moves, not next season.