Kings trade rumor SZN 2023-2024 edition!

it could but 36 mil 4 years from now probably won’t be all that much. Basically it’s a 3 year commitment and then you have a good sized expiring on your hands. I’d say that’s decent bet to work out.
 
Maybe I am looking at it wrong but to get really good players or a all star your going to have to give up something of value. But having said that if we can off load players like Barnes, Mitchell and even Huerter that’s a win for me even taking a hit on the salary side.

A lot of teams have high dollar stars and fill in the rest of the roster with roll players and draft picks anyway. We are not going to be much better at the end of the season by not rolling the dice. A couple of teams already have greatly improved this season by making trades so why not us.
 
Tetsujin said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1745899350054563943

Monte sees Malik (and eventually Keegan) getting huge extensions in the future and is trying to plan accordingly. Also Fox is getting a supermax in a year.
Click to expand...

But if they don’t want to add contacts, how are they supppsed to get better? Not saying that either guy is the answer or that adding a big contract is the best idea, but this team is not a true contender as currently constructed.
Maybe start targeting some cheaper , higher upside guys like Okongwu or cheaper solid role players like Bey.
 
iowamcnabb said:
If this happens I wonder if Monte goes all in on Grant and Brogdan. Would take KVon, HB, Davion and Duarte plus probably 2 picks.

Fox Keon
Brogdan Monk
Keegan Sasha
Grant Lyles
Sabonis Len

actually I like that team a lot. I think they could compete for a championship. Still some flexibility to change the roster up over the next couple years if needed.
Click to expand...

Ya Grant/Thubull or Grant/Brogdan makes us contenders especially if they gel right away. I’m trying to find out if brogan is still a plus defender but his shooting and play making are still good and he can play PG when fox is on the bench (hes shooting 40% from 3 on 5 attempts elite?


I think Grant/Thybull. Hangs this team we are small and can’t matchup vs teams like Boston, NO, and the Clippers. Having wings of Keegan, Thybull, and Grant would make us matchup with every team in the league
 
macadocious said:
Since we still all cannot wrap our heads around % of cap vs. the actual dollar amounts.

Grant right now is 16.5% of the cap, in 26/27 he is 14.5% of the proposed cap @ 34MM

Domas at 48MM is 24% of the cap the same year.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the better way to look at it. Ignoring players on minimum contracts, we currently have the following cap percentages committed
'23-'24: 101.3%
'24-'25: 103.7% - No Monk
'25-'26: 87.8% - No Lyles
'26-'27: 28.0% - Fox, Keegan, Barnes, Huerter, Sasha all off the books

So obviously '26-'27 is the year we need to worry about. Presumably we want to sign Monk. Currently his max contract sits somewhere around 14%. If we sign him to the max we can for four years, that's gravy. It's obviously possible that we sign him to a one-year with the intention of using full Bird rights in '25-'26.

For the upcoming three years, Grant is 21%, 20.5%, 20% (this is '26-'27) and then a player option for 19.3%.

If we trade, say, Barnes and change for Grant, then we'll presumably take on a bit of net salary for this year and the next two years, but our extension crunch doesn't actually come up until the third year, and that's where it gets a bit more problematic. Instead of being clear of Barnes/Huerter, we would have Grant still on the books. With Monk at 14%, we'd be paying 62% for three players (Domas, Monk, Grant) while looking to give big money to both Fox and Keegan - presumably at least in the high 20% range each...say 55% between the two, adding up to ~117% for just five players. With Grant not on board we're looking instead at ~97% for four players. Still a crunch, but if the model is "four players, a couple of mid-levels, and fill around with cheap contracts", that may be a better strategy than "five players, maybe no mid-levels, and fill around with cheap contracts".

You know, look at what Barnes is doing for us this year (and look at what Huerter is doing for us this year) and I think it starts to become clear that the #5 guy on the team may not contribute a lot. Do we want to pay Grant to come here, be unhappy about being #5, and get the HB treatment from the board?

We should make whatever moves make sense, but Grant is higher profile, higher salary, higher usage than I want for a guy who is about to become a role player. We need to find our Doug Christie, the glue/defense/passing/floor spreading role player that will be happy at 15% USG. I don't know who that is, but it's probably not a guy who has been stuck on 25% USG the last four years and it can probably be had for well under 20% of the salary cap if you dig the right player out.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Yes, it's the better way to look at it. Ignoring players on minimum contracts, we currently have the following cap percentages committed
'23-'24: 101.3%
'24-'25: 103.7% - No Monk
'25-'26: 87.8% - No Lyles
'26-'27: 28.0% - Fox, Keegan, Barnes, Huerter, Sasha all off the books

So obviously '26-'27 is the year we need to worry about. Presumably we want to sign Monk. Currently his max contract sits somewhere around 14%. If we sign him to the max we can for four years, that's gravy. It's obviously possible that we sign him to a one-year with the intention of using full Bird rights in '25-'26.

For the upcoming three years, Grant is 21%, 20.5%, 20% (this is '26-'27) and then a player option for 19.3%.

If we trade, say, Barnes and change for Grant, then we'll presumably take on a bit of net salary for this year and the next two years, but our extension crunch doesn't actually come up until the third year, and that's where it gets a bit more problematic. Instead of being clear of Barnes/Huerter, we would have Grant still on the books. With Monk at 14%, we'd be paying 62% for three players (Domas, Monk, Grant) while looking to give big money to both Fox and Keegan - presumably at least in the high 20% range each...say 55% between the two, adding up to ~117% for just five players. With Grant not on board we're looking instead at ~97% for four players. Still a crunch, but if the model is "four players, a couple of mid-levels, and fill around with cheap contracts", that may be a better strategy than "five players, maybe no mid-levels, and fill around with cheap contracts".

You know, look at what Barnes is doing for us this year (and look at what Huerter is doing for us this year) and I think it starts to become clear that the #5 guy on the team may not contribute a lot. Do we want to pay Grant to come here, be unhappy about being #5, and get the HB treatment from the board?

We should make whatever moves make sense, but Grant is higher profile, higher salary, higher usage than I want for a guy who is about to become a role player. We need to find our Doug Christie, the glue/defense/passing/floor spreading role player that will be happy at 15% USG. I don't know who that is, but it's probably not a guy who has been stuck on 25% USG the last four years and it can probably be had for well under 20% of the salary cap if you dig the right player out.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your % from, I pulled them straight from SpoTrac, which show lower than what you posted.
 
Joshoua said:
Ya Grant/Thubull or Grant/Brogdan makes us contenders especially if they gel right away. I’m trying to find out if brogan is still a plus defender but his shooting and play making are still good and he can play PG when fox is on the bench (hes shooting 40% from 3 on 5 attempts elite?


I think Grant/Thybull. Hangs this team we are small and can’t matchup vs teams like Boston, NO, and the Clippers. Having wings of Keegan, Thybull, and Grant would make us matchup with every team in the league
Click to expand...

Not sure about that but it definitely puts them into a better position than they are now. I'm not sure any of the names are ones that by themselves are guaranteed to push any team to that, but you do what makes you better than figure it out later.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Yes, it's the better way to look at it. Ignoring players on minimum contracts, we currently have the following cap percentages committed
'23-'24: 101.3%
'24-'25: 103.7% - No Monk
'25-'26: 87.8% - No Lyles
'26-'27: 28.0% - Fox, Keegan, Barnes, Huerter, Sasha all off the books

So obviously '26-'27 is the year we need to worry about. Presumably we want to sign Monk. Currently his max contract sits somewhere around 14%. If we sign him to the max we can for four years, that's gravy. It's obviously possible that we sign him to a one-year with the intention of using full Bird rights in '25-'26.

For the upcoming three years, Grant is 21%, 20.5%, 20% (this is '26-'27) and then a player option for 19.3%.

If we trade, say, Barnes and change for Grant, then we'll presumably take on a bit of net salary for this year and the next two years, but our extension crunch doesn't actually come up until the third year, and that's where it gets a bit more problematic. Instead of being clear of Barnes/Huerter, we would have Grant still on the books. With Monk at 14%, we'd be paying 62% for three players (Domas, Monk, Grant) while looking to give big money to both Fox and Keegan - presumably at least in the high 20% range each...say 55% between the two, adding up to ~117% for just five players. With Grant not on board we're looking instead at ~97% for four players. Still a crunch, but if the model is "four players, a couple of mid-levels, and fill around with cheap contracts", that may be a better strategy than "five players, maybe no mid-levels, and fill around with cheap contracts".

You know, look at what Barnes is doing for us this year (and look at what Huerter is doing for us this year) and I think it starts to become clear that the #5 guy on the team may not contribute a lot. Do we want to pay Grant to come here, be unhappy about being #5, and get the HB treatment from the board?

We should make whatever moves make sense, but Grant is higher profile, higher salary, higher usage than I want for a guy who is about to become a role player. We need to find our Doug Christie, the glue/defense/passing/floor spreading role player that will be happy at 15% USG. I don't know who that is, but it's probably not a guy who has been stuck on 25% USG the last four years and it can probably be had for well under 20% of the salary cap if you dig the right player out.
Click to expand...

The thing about Grant though is he has size and a history of the ability to effect things on defense. I think that combined with the ability to turn around and shoot over the defense, handle a little bit in traffic, and hit 3's on the catch and shoot is what you want if you aren't shooting for all star talent. I mean it depends on who the alternative is but putting guys like Duarte into the starting lineup likely isn't the answer. Or at least it wasn't.
 
Tetsujin said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1745911659401519200

I think this remains the best target for us this deadline.
Click to expand...

This is getting ridiculous. Soon as the Wiz said they want 2 firsts for Kuz it opened the floodgates, lol. Wouldn't mind DFS but people are legit worried about moving picks for a LaVine/Siakam but will do it for role guys? Uh, no. You can always trade out talent, but if you start finishing things up with role guys at a top dollar price and you end up with a talent need at the end of the day you are essentially done. You have to start moving your core pieces out to hopefully improve. Huerter was a good pickup while he was in his first season, but he's the exact reason you don't hamstring future 1sts for what are essentially role players unless they are your final piece.
 
macadocious said:
Where are you getting your % from, I pulled them straight from SpoTrac, which show lower than what you posted.
Click to expand...

Sportrac. I wonder what the discrepancy is. I was directly adding the values for all non-minimum players off the multi-year summary page.
 
Joshoua said:
Siakam is the worst fit he’s leaving came July, Kuzma is better than Barnes no way he first buy in thinking he’s better than fox/sabonis



Pick 22 won’t be better than Kuzma if this was nfl then ya
Click to expand...

If the Wizards are looking for multiple firsts they want one deeper than 26'. Kuz has definite abilities and has aspects of what the Kings certainly need but if the Kings are going to give up what will likely be the last of their real trade assets for this current run it better be for something worth it.
 
SacTownKid said:
The thing about Grant though is he has size and a history of the ability to effect things on defense. I think that combined with the ability to turn around and shoot over the defense, handle a little bit in traffic, and hit 3's on the catch and shoot is what you want if you aren't shooting for all star talent. I mean it depends on who the alternative is but putting guys like Duarte into the starting lineup likely isn't the answer. Or at least it wasn't.
Click to expand...

I'm not as much concerned about Grant having skills that will help us, and more concerned with cost and satisfaction. I would love for us to find a way to grab a player who can do some of the things Grant does (presumably not as well, or not with as complete a package), but costs less and will be more willing to play a 5th banana role.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
I'm not as much concerned about Grant having skills that will help us, and more concerned with cost and satisfaction. I would love for us to find a way to grab a player who can do some of the things Grant does (presumably not as well, or not with as complete a package), but costs less and will be more willing to play a 5th banana role.
Click to expand...

That sounds like what they have in Harrison Barnes. Indications are that they're trying to make a bigger move than that
 
Not a huge fan of non high lottery nba picks (as opposed to nfl draft picks) but I remember when multi 1sts were reserved for stars
 
Last edited:
Capt. Factorial said:
I'm not as much concerned about Grant having skills that will help us, and more concerned with cost and satisfaction. I would love for us to find a way to grab a player who can do some of the things Grant does (presumably not as well, or not with as complete a package), but costs less and will be more willing to play a 5th banana role.
Click to expand...

Well, of course you're exactly right on about that but that other option is who? Now if Grant is going to take a major haul to land then Monte probable stands pat but Grant at least on the surface seems like the best of all worlds. If Kuz didn't play like his body is moving faster than his brain half the time he might be as well.
 
Hoovtrain said:
Not a huge fan of non high lottery nba picks (as opposed to nfl draft picks) but I remember when multi 1sts were received for stars
Click to expand...

And they still are up to this point. Notice how many picks went for OG? Nothing of note despite what was reported. We'll see but 1 pick? Alright, multiple picks for role guys is something you work way down from.
 
SacTownKid said:
And they still are up to this point. Notice how many picks went for OG? Nothing of note despite what was reported. We'll see but 1 pick? Alright, multiple picks for role guys is something you work way down from.
Click to expand...

OG received two players with first round grades with team control and the likely first pick in the second round for a free agent though.
 
I just don't see what some here are seeing. A Fox / Monk / Kuzma / Murray / Sabonis lineup will decimate all. Who's guarding that? It'll just be Kings players saying "this guy can't guard me". And while we are destroying the league, we'll have a guy who dresses like he's dating a "Born this Way" era Lady Gaga, which completely rules. I like his confidence. I'll take the extra swagger. I feel like Brown excels in the part of coaching that isn't on the floor so I don't worry about buying in being a problem. The problem is that the bench is already uncertain so losing depth will be challenging. But if you can make the dopest starting lineup in the league, it's practically an obligation.
 
iowamcnabb said:
OG received two players with first round grades with team control and the likely first pick in the second round for a free agent though.
Click to expand...

There was talk after that GM's thought of Barrett as a negative contract, but regardless they supposedly wanted a pick with that youth.
 
SacTownKid said:
Not sure about that but it definitely puts them into a better position than they are now. I'm not sure any of the names are ones that by themselves are guaranteed to push any team to that, but you do what makes you better than figure it out later.
Click to expand...

I think it would adding Grant/Thybull takes pressure off of Fox/Sabonis scoring wise making them more efficient. Three point Shooting would still be there with Keegan being elite, Thybull shooting 38% on 4 attempts this and last season, and Grant shooting 40% on five attempts. We’d have five guys who could drop 20 any night that’s elite so on offense I’d expect us to be top 5. Defense Keegan and Grant are very good, add in Thybull who’s already an all nba defender that’s three great wing defenders all 6’8 or taller doesn’t get better than that. Fox should be respectable on defense so our only weak spots would be monk and Sabonis. I’m taking our guys vs any team that doesn’t have Jokic on it

I’d even make the two 1st we give Portland only top 3 projected to get the deal done
 
Joshoua said:
I think it would adding Grant/Thybull takes pressure off of Fox/Sabonis scoring wise making them more efficient. Three point Shooting would still be there with Keegan being elite, Thybull shooting 38% on 4 attempts this and last season, and Grant shooting 40% on five attempts. We’d have five guys who could drop 20 any night that’s elite so on offense I’d expect us to be top 5. Defense Keegan and Grant are very good, add in Thybull who’s already an all nba defender that’s three great wing defenders all 6’8 or taller doesn’t get better than that. Fox should be respectable on defense so our only weak spots would be monk and Sabonis. I’m taking our guys vs any team that doesn’t have Jokic on it

I’d even make the two 1st we give Portland only top 3 projected to get the deal done
Click to expand...
If we are going to make a significant move, Grant/Thybulle would be my 1st choice.

I’d rather have Thybulle over Brogdon too. We would already have Fox, Monk, Murray, Grant, and Sabonis as shot creators/playmakers. I think his skills and usage would overlap a bit too much for us to really utilize him to his full potential (and then there’s the fact that he makes ~$12 mil more than Thybulle). A low usage, elite defender like Thybulle makes a lot more sense with that core.
 
twslam07 said:
If we are going to make a significant move, Grant/Thybulle would be my 1st choice.

I’d rather have Thybulle over Brogdon too. We would already have Fox, Monk, Murray, Grant, and Sabonis as shot creators/playmakers. I think his skills and usage would overlap a bit too much for us to really utilize him to his full potential (and then there’s the fact that he makes ~$12 mil more than Thybulle). A low usage, elite defender like Thybulle makes a lot more sense with that core.
Click to expand...

Grant and Thybulle makes too much sense for it to ever happen unfortunately haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Warhawk
2024-25 Uniform info - Classic Edition
Replies
11
Views
876
NewArena
NewArena
N
Kings unveil new City Edition uniforms, mascot for 2024-25 NBA season
Replies
0
Views
178
NBC Sports BayArea
N
S
ESPN Predicts Kings Guard to Breakout in 2024-25 NBA Season
Replies
0
Views
161
Sacramento Kings On SI
S
C
Spurs trade proposal lands Domantas Sabonis in offseason after Kings Play-in loss
Replies
2
Views
339
Kingz19
Kingz19
Y
Sacramento Kings 2024-25 season preview: Did they close the gap on West's best?
Replies
0
Views
137
Yahoo Sports
Y