Kings on the market for a pass 1st PG. via Chad Ford

  • Thread starter Thread starter sactownfan
  • Start date Start date
S

sactownfan

Guest
So post Rudy Gay trade I think its pretty clear that neither Ray or Jimmer can effectively lead this team as a starter or off the bench. Ray isn't quite at a NBA level yet and is gonna need time if he is to grow into being one. Jimmer has improved immensely but isn't a true PG. He could be like a Derrick Fisher type PG with a ball handling PG like SG like a Tyreke Evans or Kobe but this team is all out of those kinda SG's.

So this news via Chad Ford isn't really surprising. We obviously we NEED another REAL /TRUE PG on this roster.

JT, Thornton, Jimmer are what we got to make it happen. Who could we get? lol!

FYI Ford makes no mention to any players or sources.
 
sactownfan said:
So post Rudy Gay trade I think its pretty clear that neither Ray or Jimmer can effectively lead this team as a starter or off the bench. Ray isn't quite at a NBA level yet and is gonna need time if he is to grow into being one. Jimmer has improved immensely but isn't a true PG. He could be like a Derrick Fisher type PG with a ball handling PG like SG like a Tyreke Evans or Kobe but this team is all out of those kinda SG's.

So this news via Chad Ford isn't really surprising. We obviously we NEED another REAL /TRUE PG on this roster.

JT, Thornton, Jimmer are what we got to make it happen. Who could we get? lol!

FYI Ford makes no mention to any players or sources.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link please?
 
He'll get an infraction if he posts a link to insider.

It's in the Tankers Coming Into Focus article, I hope I'm allowed to say that.
 
I'm all for looking for point guards,..but on a another note, how can we have come to a conclusion that Ray Mac is not NBA ready yet? He's only played a handful of minutes since he was called back from Reno.

Give the guy a shot at least
 
Chubbs said:
He'll get an infraction if he posts a link to insider.

It's in the Tankers Coming Into Focus article, I hope I'm allowed to say that.
Click to expand...

Of course you're allowed to say that.

The posting rules are just so that nobody comes bumping around the board talking of suing for copyright infringement. But copyright only runs to the words in the article. You can mention its title, its conclusions, its rankings, anything you want. You just can't copy/paste the article itself. And please do provide links for a more complete view.
 
Not surprising but the options appear limited.

I'd love Dragic but he's playing too well with Bledsoe right now. I'd like Hinrich too but I don't see him being part of a younger core although for a year or two I wouldn't mind and Chi wants to develop Teague/Augustin. Lowry is on the block but has a number of suitors and NY looks like the favorite.

Not a big fan of his but someone who might fit the role and has a few years left is Jameer Nelson. Orl is going with the youth movement so he might be a legit option. He'd run the offense and keep the defense honest while staying out of the way for the most part.
 
upinsmoke said:
http://www.latinopost.com/articles/...eltics-trade-rumors-news-nba-trade-rumors.htm

I seen this today FWIW. The only way I can see this happening short of draft day is some sort of 3/4 team deal where someone gets Asik (Boston?) and someone sends CLE some sort of asset to release the rights to our pick to Boston and Rondo goes to us which I would be down for provided IT remains a King.
Click to expand...

Simply just rumor. Any real reporter would do their homework and know we can't trade our first until our pick obligation to Cleveland is fulfilled. Besides, that package is far too much for a mega injury-prone star PG
 
upinsmoke said:
http://www.latinopost.com/articles/...eltics-trade-rumors-news-nba-trade-rumors.htm

I seen this today FWIW. The only way I can see this happening short of draft day is some sort of 3/4 team deal where someone gets Asik (Boston?) and someone sends CLE some sort of asset to release the rights to our pick to Boston and Rondo goes to us which I would be down for provided IT remains a King.
Click to expand...

That's just repeating/inspired by that other somewhat dubiously sourced article above -- you can tell, its got identical details.

That said, where there's enough smoke, there is often fire, or at least an attempt at fire. The details could be wrong, but we could be talking.
 
The_Jamal said:
Simply just rumor. Any real reporter would do their homework and know we can't trade our first until our pick obligation to Cleveland is fulfilled.
Click to expand...

you know, we've been saying that and saying that...but I STILL wonder if that's true. For instance, we hold a remainder interest. If the pick is #1-#12, we get it. If the pick is #13 upward, Cleveland gets it. Why would it not be possible to trade away our remainder interest?

To Boston, our #1pick in 2014 if pick #1-#12, otherwise our #1 pick in 2016 (because if Boston didn't get the 2014 pick, it would mean Cleveland did, and we could not give away picks in back to back years).
 
Bricklayer said:
That's just repeating/inspired by that other somewhat dubiously sourced article above -- you can tell, its got identical details.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the Latino Post is that same site that has made dubious claims like "Toronto has their eye on Jimmer Fredette" and said that there was going to be a Varejao/IT deal. Clickbait, nothing more, whichever of the two articles is the source.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Keep in mind that the Latino Post is that same site that has made dubious claims like "Toronto has their eye on Jimmer Fredette" and said that there was going to be a Varejao/IT deal. Clickbait, nothing more, whichever of the two articles is the source.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though -- we DID end up dealing with Toronto. Makes me wonder a bit, the whole smoke/fire thing. Could have been known we were talking to them, they just made up/missed on the details.
 
Should anything happen on the Rondo front, I would like to just take this time to copy over a wonderful post by a true scholar of the game that was posted on Nov 21st of this year on page 4 of the Kings Active in Trade Talks thread:

On another note, everybody, including me, assumes that we are a tanking team.

However, we did waste money on Landry. We did apparently chase Igoudala and Monta. What if we're not intentionally tanking, just incompetent? As much as hey, let's go get lucky and draft Wiggins or Parker rings true as a strategy, in a year when EVERYBODY is tanking, you could conceivably go the other way and clean up in trades helping other teams unload vets and get bad.

Yeah yeah, Parker/Wiggins, but if I told you that by the deadline we could have a team core of Cousins, Rudy Gay, Rajon Rondo, with IT heading the bench, would we really turn our nose up at the opportunity?
Click to expand...

Note the final line. Sheer genius no?
 
Bricklayer said:
you know, we've been saying that and saying that...but I STILL wonder if that's true. For instance, we hold a remainder interest. If the pick is #1-#12, we get it. If the pick is #13 upward, Cleveland gets it. Why would it not be possible to trade away our remainder interest?
Click to expand...

This would still have the potential to break the Stepien rule - which is that you can't make any trades that could potentially leave you without a first-round pick in two consecutive drafts.

Here's the scenario that breaks it: We trade the remainder interest (#1-12) of the 2014 pick to Boston. Our 2014 pick falls in the #1-12 range and is conveyed to Boston. Then our 2015 pick falls outside the protection range and is conveyed to Cleveland. That's two years in a row, no first round pick. Since it is possible (also not terribly unlikely, though possible is the key word here) it falls afoul of Stepien. We could get around that by acquiring an unprotected first rounder in either 2014 or 2015 from somebody else, but until that happens it's a no-go.
 
The_Jamal said:
Simply just rumor. Any real reporter would do their homework and know we can't trade our first until our pick obligation to Cleveland is fulfilled. Besides, that package is far too much for a mega injury-prone star PG
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the package being way too sweet (unless it included more back from Boston).
 
Bricklayer said:
you know, we've been saying that and saying that...but I STILL wonder if that's true. For instance, we hold a remainder interest. If the pick is #1-#12, we get it. If the pick is #13 upward, Cleveland gets it. Why would it not be possible to trade away our remainder interest?

To Boston, our #1pick in 2014 if pick #1-#12, otherwise our #1 pick in 2016 (because if Boston didn't get the 2014 pick, it would mean Cleveland did, and we could not give away picks in back to back years).
Click to expand...

Never heard of a team being allowed to promise a pick between 2 teams. Just seems odd and doubt its legal. You could get extra weird with trade scenarios.

"Ok, Our pick is promised from 1-14 , 17-20, 23-26. But we do have the 15-16 slot open. Does that entice you?"

I guess it could be talking about a 2018 pick? Because Cleveland gets our by 2017, no matter what correct?

Anyway, I hope we don't give both IT and Ben in the deal. Just way too much for an injured, overrated (in my humble opinion) star PG.
 
Bricklayer said:
That's the thing though -- we DID end up dealing with Toronto. Makes me wonder a bit, the whole smoke/fire thing. Could have been known we were talking to them, they just made up/missed on the details.
Click to expand...

Or it could have been the blind squirrel theory. I actually don't doubt our front office has been talking, at some level, to just about everybody else about just about every player. If we've gotten into serious discussions with Boston is anybody's guess, but if the Latino Post can see the smoke from those sorts of fires (and then loves to make up a story about what the fire looks like)...well, we might be on the verge of an epic Marcus Thornton for Keith Bogans swap.

I do guess that in any case we wouldn't get Rondo without shipping IT, especially since there doesn't look to be any way to send them two first-rounders.
 
The_Jamal said:
Never heard of a team being allowed to promise a pick between 2 teams. Just seems odd and doubt its legal. You could get extra weird with trade scenarios.

"Ok, Our pick is promised from 1-14 , 17-20, 23-26. But we do have the 15-16 slot open. Does that entice you?"
Click to expand...

It does happen. In fact we did that sort of thing with out 2014 second rounder: 31-55 = Toronto, 56-60 = Knicks. The loser gets nothing.

I guess it could be talking about a 2018 pick? Because Cleveland gets our by 2017, no matter what correct?
Click to expand...

It can't be 2018, because it is still possible for Cleveland to get our 2017 pick, and you can't trade consecutive first-rounders.
 
Bricklayer said:
you know, we've been saying that and saying that...but I STILL wonder if that's true. For instance, we hold a remainder interest. If the pick is #1-#12, we get it. If the pick is #13 upward, Cleveland gets it. Why would it not be possible to trade away our remainder interest?

To Boston, our #1pick in 2014 if pick #1-#12, otherwise our #1 pick in 2016 (because if Boston didn't get the 2014 pick, it would mean Cleveland did, and we could not give away picks in back to back years).
Click to expand...


Doesn't that situation though have to wait until we know which place we are picking in? Let's say it's the 7th pick and the season is over, then we're allowed to trade it. But in the middle of the season when we don't have any idea where we're going to land we cannot trade it. That was my assumption anyway.

Or can we promise that if our pick falls out of the range where Cleveland would get our pick then we would send it to another team? Can we even do something like that? I don't know how that works.
 
only problem is that trade leaves us with only Jimmer and Ray behind rondo in the backcourt. and a smallball type pf.

Rondo/Ray
Jimmer
Gay/Acy
Williams
Cousins/Gray/ndiaye

maybe courtney lee or Bogan involved. Unless all those names are in fact not involved.
 
Entity said:
only problem is that trade leaves us with only Jimmer and Ray behind rondo in the backcourt. and a smallball type pf.

Rondo/Ray
Jimmer
Gay/Acy
Williams
Cousins/Gray/ndiaye

maybe courtney lee or Bogan involved. Unless all those names are in fact not involved.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Plus less future asset potential in case Rondo decides to walk at the end of next season.
 
Gary said:
Doesn't that situation though have to wait until we know which place we are picking in? Let's say it's the 7th pick and the season is over, then we're allowed to trade it. But in the middle of the season when we don't have any idea where we're going to land we cannot trade it. That was my assumption anyway.
Click to expand...

no, I think Capt. has the real problem, the possibility that we could transfer the pick to Boston this year, and then qualify to transfer it to Cleveland next. If that is the bar, you couldn't trade the pick without basically a "we'll trade you a pick that only vests once Cleveland gets one of our picks" clause in it, which would basically keep us encumbered forever.

Its too bad this is supposed to be a good draft and Cleveland doesn't have many attractive pieces, but I'd love to just give them the damn remainder and get rid of the ongoing obligation. maybe we can give them the reaminder, they can give Varejao to the Rockets, and the Rockets can send Asik to us? Maybe we give them IT and the remainder for Kyrie! :p (and watch the ball absolutely die because Uncle Drew doesn't do passing). Or...IT and the remainder to Cleveland, Kyrie to Boston, and Rondo to us....
 
Bricklayer said:
people say that sometimes, but why would he do that? We'd be a power team with a trio of stars about to enter a brand new arena.
Click to expand...

Mostly because a lot of NBA players are morons obsessed with playing in "big" cities. Not saying its a guarantee, I would just worry about leveraging all of our young assets on Gay and Rondo staying in a city that has struggled to attract FA. We'd have a ton of cap space if it happened but basically few young prospects and a lack of draft picks.

Plus, I just don't think Rondo is worth as much as the fake rumor claims we would send.
 
sdballer said:
Mostly because a lot of NBA players are morons obsessed with playing in "big" cities. Not saying its a guarantee, I would just worry about leveraging all of our young assets on Gay and Rondo staying in a city that has struggled to attract FA. We'd have a ton of cap space if it happened but basically few young prospects and a lack of draft picks.

Plus, I just don't think Rondo is worth as much as the fake rumor claims we would send.
Click to expand...

Sacramento may have had issues attracting big-ticket free agents, but when was the last time a high profile player that was drafted or traded here walked via free agency? Brian Grant? (I'm not counting players like Evans or Vlade who management purposefully did not retain).

That said, I agree that this "rumored" package (and I use scare quotes because we're unfortunately playing along with some "journalistic" nonsense here) is too steep for my taste.
 
I would not give up Thomas + 2 first round Picks for Rondo let alone adding Mclemore, seriously if we are going to be that idiotic may as well throw Cousins in than and completely let them annihilate us........

We are giving up way way to much in that deal, I rather draft two solid players and keep IT/Mac than have Rondo on his own coming back from a knee injury. Seriously if "The Alchemist" does this deal he losses the nickname.
 
Bricklayer said:
you know, we've been saying that and saying that...but I STILL wonder if that's true. For instance, we hold a remainder interest. If the pick is #1-#12, we get it. If the pick is #13 upward, Cleveland gets it. Why would it not be possible to trade away our remainder interest?

To Boston, our #1pick in 2014 if pick #1-#12, otherwise our #1 pick in 2016 (because if Boston didn't get the 2014 pick, it would mean Cleveland did, and we could not give away picks in back to back years).
Click to expand...

Because you can not trade your picks in back to back years. Say we trade the pick to Boston then next year we still owe Cleveland a pick. It can only be a draft day trade that isn't completed till the leagues next fiscal year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ozymandias
A few words on (a)the Jaden Hardy trade (b)the Kings multi-year draft outlook
Replies
3
Views
681
Ozymandias
Ozymandias
twslam07
  • Poll Poll
Shooting for Playoffs with an Eye on the Future...
Replies
4
Views
871
mac
M
Tetsujin
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] Kings @ Warriors, 10/23/2022 5:30pm Pacific, 8:30pm Eastern
15 16 17
Replies
499
Views
16K
SacTownKid
SacTownKid
bajaden
Bajaden's final 2022 mock draft: Part one
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
Telemachus
Telemachus
W
Expectations of Kings' defense, 2021-22
5 6 7
Replies
196
Views
15K
EIM86
EIM86
Back
Top