Omer Asik?

pkballr

Bench
Well now, since we're "allowed" to talk basketball again, I don't mind stirring up a little bit of the crazies.

Houston has done a solid job in the playoffs so far but their team is obviously primed and set up for a player like Dwight Howard. With so many deep threats and drive and dish players, Howard would fill in tremendously. With Howard's free agency looming, it's no surprise that the Rockets will again try to make a run at the big man. What won't be surprising is to see the Kings end up with another potential trade with the Rockets.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say the Rockets make a big push for Dwight. This would obviously make Asik redundant, as he would serve no use coming off the bench being paid starter money. Also, by opting not to bring back Garcia and Brooks (which is more than likely. Though I think Brooks is a player option he'd probably intend to keep) and shedding the contract of Asik would make them big players for Dwight, putting them about $20 million under the cap. Now, since the Kings would need to at least give something of value up to the Rockets, I'd say let's give them Jimmer. With Lin's rocky playing and Beverley's limited experience, it seems only right to add another player to that mix. Might as well make it a shooter that could play a similar role as Reddick did for the Magic with Dwight. Also, I threw in Salmons, an amnesty candidate that will not affect their books (luxury tax wise), to make the numbers work. Also, they're giving us Royce White because uhh... he's been a headcase? Sure! So potential trade:

Rockets out: Asik, White
Rockets in: Fredette, Salmons

Kings out: Fredette, Salmons
Kings in: Asik, White

Potential lineup:
Rockets:
PG - Lin, Beverley, Fredette, "Brooks"
SG - Harden, Anderson
SF - Parsons, Delfino
PF - Smith, Jones, Robinson
C - Howard, Olbrecht

Kings:
PG - Thomas, (Douglas)
SG - Evans, Thornton
SF - Patterson, "Outlaw" , White
PF - Cousins, Thompson
C - Asik, (Aldrich)

Why the Rockets do this: Free up cap space to acquire Dwight Howard. This is strictly a salary dump on their part that they would be ludicrous to accept, though it would benefit them tremendously with more money available. With a lineup of 3-4 floor spacers and Howard in the middle, that team can be potentially very dangerous. Would play to their strengths as a deep ball team while building a path for the future with one franchise player and a star in Howard. The inside/out game would work so much more. Adding Jimmer just gives them a more reliable shooter to space the floor for Dwight.

Why the Rockets don't do this: So they're not on drugs right? Well, it'd be terrible for them to give up on Asik, a centerpiece of their defense. Also, White is still a big question mark. Potential never realized though is just another common story in the NBA and it might be nice for the organization to walk away from that mess. Also, they're really giving up two young pieces for a bench role player. Which is... highly insane. But, Dwight.

Why the Kings do this: So you're telling me we clear out our point guard "log jam" and get rid of Salmons contract while getting fair value in return? Uhh... you owe us Rockets! Bringing in Asik would be the answer for the defensive big to pair with Cousins. He wouldn't demand the ball and strictly works as just a pick and roll, offense rebounding big. This would be a scary front court to deal with on both offense and defense. White's potential is either or. He could be another headache, but he'd be "our" headache. Still, the value we'd be getting back in return would far out weight losing Jimmer's potential.

Why the Kings don't do this: Hmm... well bringing on White? Still lacking a dearth in veteran players. Won't address our SF needs? Uhh... because the sale hasn't gone through yet to the Sacramento group till the beginning of next season and FTM?

Of course, there's a few things that this trade hinges on. One, Dwight Howard would need to go to the Rockets which who knows what could happen. Two, what is Harden's PPP and how it'd affect bringing on another max contract guy. Three, if the Rockets are truly going to make a push for Howard, they'd have to shed salary somewhere but I would think Lin would be higher on the list to move. This also doesn't factor in our skeleton lineup with no draft picks included. I'm sure our pick would be of some value to our team. So let the craziness of the TDOS begin.
 
Won't happen. A healthy, if healthy, Varejao is who I'd target in a trade as I think he probably could be had.

I will say great job on the presentation of the trade though. Well thought out and well presented. Much better than some of the other threads in this section.
 
The major problem here is that you seem to suggest that the Rockets would amnesty Salmons. They can't by rule. In fact, by TWO rules. One, you can't amnesty a player you traded for after the ratification of the CBA, only a player that was under contract with your team when the CBA was signed (December 2011). Two, Houston has already used their amnesty (Luis Scola) and they don't get another one.

It seems like including Salmons is part of the rationale for both teams - for the Kings to drop his salary, for the Rockets to drop their cap number - but it won't work. Rather than trade Asik, I'd guess that to clear "Dwight" cap space (they don't need much to offer the max) the Rockets would likely ship off TRob to a desperate team with cap space (say, Charlotte) for a trade exception. That saves $3.5M right there, and since they have about $19M already, that's good enough to offer the max to Howard (around $20.5M).
 
Won't happen. A healthy, if healthy, Varejao is who I'd target in a trade as I think he probably could be had.

I will say great job on the presentation of the trade though. Well thought out and well presented. Much better than some of the other threads in this section.

I like Varejao as well. I think he would be a very good fit next to Cousins. I'm just not sure what the Kings would have to give up to get him.
 
I like Varejao as well. I think he would be a very good fit next to Cousins. I'm just not sure what the Kings would have to give up to get him.

Most likely Marcus Thornton and Jason Thompson. Throw in Jimmer as well and we can even take back Omri if they want.
 
I would love Asik, I advocating trying to get him as an FA last off-season. Not sure HOU would trade him though.
 
Most likely Marcus Thornton and Jason Thompson. Throw in Jimmer as well and we can even take back Omri if they want.

Hmmm! I hate to be a stickler, but Varejao is scheduled to make $9,036,364.00 next season. The combined salaries of Thronton, Thompson, and Jimmer add up to $16,132,790.00. Oppsie! Even if we were to take back Omri, it wouldn't work financially.
 
Hmmm! I hate to be a stickler, but Varejao is scheduled to make $9,036,364.00 next season. The combined salaries of Thronton, Thompson, and Jimmer add up to $16,132,790.00. Oppsie! Even if we were to take back Omri, it wouldn't work financially.

I should have done my research before i threw that out there! Always thought Varejao made more than 9 mil a season.
 
If there's any Houston Rocket who we should be targeting right now, it's Chandler Parsons. Good D, unselfish passer, versatile scorer who can shoot and finish around the rim. He's a perfect fit at SF on our roster.
 
Last edited:
If there's any Houston Rocket who we should be targeting right now, it's Chandler Parsons. Good D, unselfish passer, versatile scorer who can shoot and finish around the rim. He's a perfect fit at SF on our roster.

Yeah, and also for all those reasons really completely unattainable. They love him over there.

Probably not the time to mention that we could have drafted him instead of Tyler Honeycutt in 2011.
 
Yeah, and also for all those reasons really completely unattainable. They love him over there.

Probably not the time to mention that we could have drafted him instead of Tyler Honeycutt in 2011.

No, its the perfect time. Something I've mentioned quite a bit of late. Our front office has flat out stunk for some time now.
 
No, its the perfect time. Something I've mentioned quite a bit of late. Our front office has flat out stunk for some time now.

But to be fair, the list of front offices that completely blew it on Chandler Parsons, in hindsight, includes at least:
Kings
Clippers
Nets (three times)
Wizards (twice)
Cavaliers
Heat
Celtics
Trailblazers
Bulls
Spurs
Knicks

And that's just the obvious mistakes on players that aren't and won't be better than Parsons. In a redraft, I don't think it's hard to make a case for Parsons going top-5. What if, what if. Didn't your grandmother have a saying about "if", Baja? ;)
 
But to be fair, the list of front offices that completely blew it on Chandler Parsons, in hindsight, includes at least:
Kings
Clippers
Nets (three times)
Wizards (twice)
Cavaliers
Heat
Celtics
Trailblazers
Bulls
Spurs
Knicks

And that's just the obvious mistakes on players that aren't and won't be better than Parsons. In a redraft, I don't think it's hard to make a case for Parsons going top-5. What if, what if. Didn't your grandmother have a saying about "if", Baja? ;)
Cumulative though. We've sorely needed a SF for years, then you consider we passed on Parsons, Barnes and Leonard, all three are starting SF's in the playoffs, it looks terrible any way you slice it. And those teams didn't need a SF as badly as we did. The players those three replaced are better SF's than we have. Barnes replaced Wright, and I'd take Wright hands down over any SF we've had since Artest.

Then you consider what Jimmer and TRob look like, and it just makes my head hurt. Rumors have said Petrie has been asleep at the wheel for years and doesn't work as hard as other gm's. Results suggest that is true.
 
Cumulative though. We've sorely needed a SF for years, then you consider we passed on Parsons, Barnes and Leonard, all three are starting SF's in the playoffs, it looks terrible any way you slice it.

But "cumulative" wasn't the point I was addressing. I wasn't addressing TRob over Barnes and I wasn't addressing Jimmer over Leonard - I was addressing whether Honeycutt over Parsons is fair evidence that our front office "flat out stunk". And when I see at least 14 guys (and maybe quite a few more) go ahead of Parsons that shouldn't have, it makes me think that this is not good evidence of flat out stinking - if so, on the order of half the front offices in the NBA flat out stink, and I don't imagine that's true.

Note that arguing against one piece of evidence pointing toward flat out stinking does not actually refute the presence of flat out stench - it's just that I don't think that one piece of evidence was particularly good.

For my part, of those three picks I believe I would have done two of them the same as our FO. When Honeycutt was available at #33 in 2011, he was my guy. Parsons was on my radar, but barely. And though I wanted Barnes at #5 in 2012, when TRob fell (I thought he was #2 in the class), I would have taken him too. Now, I wouldn't have made the Beno-Salmons trade and I wouldn't have bowed to Maloof pressures to draft Jimmer, but at #7 in 2011 I wanted Leonard, though I probably would have grabbed Knight when he fell.

I guess what I'm trying to say there is that while our FO may flat out stink when it comes to the draft, they don't flat out stink any worse than I do, so I don't have any room to talk. I can look at Dan Gilbert in Cleveland and wonder what the heck he was doing drafting Thompson/Waiters at #4 in consecutive drafts, but if I were, say, a Hawks fan rather than a Kings fan, I don't think I could look at the Kings' 2011/2012 drafts and say I think they were terrible - I would have done nearly the same thing.
 
I guess what I'm trying to say there is that while our FO may flat out stink when it comes to the draft, they don't flat out stink any worse than I do, so I don't have any room to talk. I can look at Dan Gilbert in Cleveland and wonder what the heck he was doing drafting Thompson/Waiters at #4 in consecutive drafts, but if I were, say, a Hawks fan rather than a Kings fan, I don't think I could look at the Kings' 2011/2012 drafts and say I think they were terrible - I would have done nearly the same thing.

dunno, but wouldn't that stance mean that you also couldn't criticise an NBA player for doing something wrong, seeing as nobody here is better at pretty much any aspect of basketball? I mean, it would take a crazy person to state they'd be, let's say, better at midrange shooting than Tyreke or something.
 
dunno, but wouldn't that stance mean that you also couldn't criticise an NBA player for doing something wrong, seeing as nobody here is better at pretty much any aspect of basketball? I mean, it would take a crazy person to state they'd be, let's say, better at midrange shooting than Tyreke or something.

As speaks to the first point, I don't think the analogy holds. Let me see if I can flesh this out. NBA players are way better than we are at what they do. So when somebody does something that is so bad that it is obviously below their skill level, we criticize them for not playing up to their potential even though we couldn't do it ourselves. But NBA front offices aren't a whole lot better at drafting than the average joe. Thousands an thousands of people blog out mock drafts every year using information they cull from all over, and in general they're not much different than what front offices actually do. Furthermore, the draft is a crap shoot where whether a pick was good or bad sometimes isn't clear until years down the road. If I'm 5% as good at basketball as an NBA player, and I can see immediately that he screwed up, sure, I can criticize him. If I'm 85% as good at drafting as an NBA front office and they make the same move I would have made, I don't feel comfortable criticizing them a few years down the road when it turns out to be a bad move.

The second point stands as a given.
 
But to be fair, the list of front offices that completely blew it on Chandler Parsons, in hindsight, includes at least:
Kings
Clippers
Nets (three times)
Wizards (twice)
Cavaliers
Heat
Celtics
Trailblazers
Bulls
Spurs
Knicks

And that's just the obvious mistakes on players that aren't and won't be better than Parsons. In a redraft, I don't think it's hard to make a case for Parsons going top-5. What if, what if. Didn't your grandmother have a saying about "if", Baja? ;)

I think you have a fair point if your simply talking about the 1st round of the draft. But if your talking about the second round, when you have to choose between Parsons and Honeycutt, then its a different story. I watched both play a lot, and there was no doubt that Parsons was my choice. He was simply a better player. Now if your betting on potential, then I can see a team taking a gamble on Honeycutt. He's more athletic than Parsons. But skill wise, there was no contest between the two. Parsons was better at every aspect of the game, and especially defense. Anyone that follows Florida knows that the main emphasis of Florida is you play defense, or you don't play. Plus, I know your somewhat blinded by your love of UCLA:D

I was raised by my great aunt, who was like my grandmother. She always said that, "If is for children". She also said, never say please after someone says no. Its begging, and adults don't beg, they do! Her final saying was, "Don't disappoint me, because you'll lose my respect. You'll be able to disapoint others, but you may never get my respect back."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top