Otto Porter traded to Chicago

#2
Mark 3/17 on your calendars. I'm betting that's the day Porter goes off on the KINGS like Oubre did last month so the fans that desperately wanted the KINGS to trade for him can say "I told you so". :p
 
#7
Not happy. We could/should have made a better offer
But doesn't the fact that they didn't make a better offer tell you they didn't feel it was worth it?

Why do you think Porter was traded for such a marginal package? Because it was hard to convince teams to take on that contract. They had to sell low. Parker/Portis and a 2023 2nd round pick was the best they could do. Porter is a good player, so that tells you teams were wary of the contract.
 
#8
What would our better offer be? Expirings? Portis and Parker both have some talent.
They do. But let's not get carried away. Those two players and a 2023 2nd isn't commensurate to what many felt Porters talent and value was/is. But his contract for the value he brings lowered his value.
 
#9
What would our better offer be? Expirings? Portis and Parker both have some talent.
Expirings and taking Mahinmi off their hands so they get out of the tax and can maybe do something to rebuild?

I'm thinking Willie was on the table in the talks. They probably wanted Bogs. We said shove off.
 
#11
I'm pretty upset over this . The asking price wasn't that high either.

If we ruin our promising future by trading for Wiggins or Barnes (moreso Wiggins), I'll be even more upset.
 
#12
I'm pretty upset over this . The asking price wasn't that high either.

If we ruin our promising future by trading for Wiggins or Barnes (moreso Wiggins), I'll be even more upset.
I'm not sure what we would have given up to get him. Seems like outside of WCS, no one wanted to trade anyone other than expirings.
 
#13
I'm not sure what we would have given up to get him. Seems like outside of WCS, no one wanted to trade anyone other than expirings.
I likely would have given up WCS, Labissiere, AND Jackson. I think that's more than most would give up on this forum however.
 
#14
I’m pretty disappointed to hear this. He was quite clearly available for very little.

It’s a salary dump but Parker atleast gives the appearance of still going for it this season since he can still score a lot. That’s probably what got Chicago the deal and they do have an option for him if he happens to play very well. So I guess it’s more than what the Kings could’ve offered if the Kings really offered anything. I don’t think the Kings were offering Willie(I think there’s a good chance the Kings think they can keep Willie for a reasonable figure and want to) I think at best they were offering Iman and other expirings and possibly a Skal or Frank. A Jabari Parker lessens the blow for uneducated fans because he’ll probably immediately score at the same or even higher amount than what Porter was averaging.

Still sucks to see somebody you wanted get dealt on a salary dump though.
 
#17
I likely would have given up WCS, Labissiere, AND Jackson. I think that's more than most would give up on this forum however.
I think nearly everyone on this forum would have done that trade. Out of those 3 players and Parker/Portis, the best player out of all of them is WCS but he doesn't have the "upside" that Portis and Parker have from most peoples perspectives. I think the trade you proposed would have been very underwhelming for the Wiz. WCS and Bogie would have made the Wiz think long and hard but I don't think that would have been a good trade for the Kings. Porter is obviously the best player out of everyone but it's a lot easier for the Kings to acquire a 3&D SF in the future than it is to acquire a player with Bogie's skill set if they would have traded him.

The Kings simply don't have enough tradeable pieces that they are willing to let go. Seems like almost everyone on the team is either the "core" or not very good/old with the one exception of WCS hanging out in the middle.
 
#18
I think nearly everyone on this forum would have done that trade. Out of those 3 players and Parker/Portis, the best player out of all of them is WCS but he doesn't have the "upside" that Portis and Parker have from most peoples perspectives. I think the trade you proposed would have been very underwhelming for the Wiz. WCS and Bogie would have made the Wiz think long and hard but I don't think that would have been a good trade for the Kings. Porter is obviously the best player out of everyone but it's a lot easier for the Kings to acquire a 3&D SF in the future than it is to acquire a player with Bogie's skill set if they would have traded him.

The Kings simply don't have enough tradeable pieces that they are willing to let go. Seems like almost everyone on the team is either the "core" or not very good/old with the one exception of WCS hanging out in the middle.
Going off the poll I made, it doesn't look like nearly everyone would have made that deal: https://community.kingsfans.com/thr...ake-for-otto-porter.71105/page-3#post-1438474

If it meant trading Bogdan, I'd probably walk away too. One thing you're forgetting though. It's not just WCS/Labissiere/Jackson vs. Portis/Parker. It's WCS/Labissiere/Jackson/Luxury Tax Savings vs. Portis/Parker.
 
#19
Going off the poll I made, it doesn't look like nearly everyone would have made that deal: https://community.kingsfans.com/thr...ake-for-otto-porter.71105/page-3#post-1438474

If it meant trading Bogdan, I'd probably walk away too. One thing you're forgetting though. It's not just WCS/Labissiere/Jackson vs. Portis/Parker. It's WCS/Labissiere/Jackson/Luxury Tax Savings vs. Portis/Parker.
The fact that you had deals on there that gave up less than that package is what swayed the votes the other way. Why give up more when you have the option to give up less? If that makes sense. I think nearly everyone would have taken that deal if the poll was either don't acquire Porter or give up WCS/Skal/JJ etc.

I still have the luxury tax savings in mind but I feel like that has been the least valuable trade chip out there for a few years now. Teams just simply aren't dumping players to save money anymore. Unless they get picks back or young players with upside, they aren't doing these luxury tax savings deals. If they were, the Kings would have made a couple of deals by now but they haven't been able to because they just don't seem to be available.
 
#20
The fact that you had deals on there that gave up less than that package is what swayed the votes the other way. Why give up more when you have the option to give up less? If that makes sense. I think nearly everyone would have taken that deal if the poll was either don't acquire Porter or give up WCS/Skal/JJ etc.

I still have the luxury tax savings in mind but I feel like that has been the least valuable trade chip out there for a few years now. Teams just simply aren't dumping players to save money anymore. Unless they get picks back or young players with upside, they aren't doing these luxury tax savings deals. If they were, the Kings would have made a couple of deals by now but they haven't been able to because they just don't seem to be available.
How is that the interpretation when the question is "What deal(s) would you make in exchange for Otto Porter at the trade deadline?" That's not telling people to pick the most reasonable deal. It's asking people of the deals listed, which ones would you accept playing the role of Vlade.

In fact, people were answering incorrectly in the opposite way (They would trade WCS and expirings for Porter but not just expirings for Porter). It just goes to show how many people on this forum can follow directions. It's like giving a test to a child and asking them to read the instructions first. Some kids don't read the instructions and start answering the questions below when the instructions say "the less pencil/pen marks on your paper, the higher your score will be"
 
#21
I bet every team we approach for a SF is asking for Bogi in return. Teams know that's the best asset we have that we might be willing to give up for the right player.
 
#23
How is that the interpretation when the question is "What deal(s) would you make in exchange for Otto Porter at the trade deadline?" That's not telling people to pick the most reasonable deal. It's asking people of the deals listed, which ones would you accept playing the role of Vlade.

In fact, people were answering incorrectly in the opposite way (They would trade WCS and expirings for Porter but not just expirings for Porter). It just goes to show how many people on this forum can follow directions. It's like giving a test to a child and asking them to read the instructions first. Some kids don't read the instructions and start answering the questions below when the instructions say "the less pencil/pen marks on your paper, the higher your score will be"
I'm not sure I'm quite following you. You asked people to pick what deals they would make in exchange for Otto Porter and the deal we're talking about is the richest of the deals you listed since it involves giving up all the players. More people picked expirings + Skal over expirings +WCS/Skal/JJ because of course more people would like to give up less to get more.

It's like if I posted a poll saying "How much would you pay for this car?" and I gave the options of $1k, $2k, etc all the way up to $8k. More people would pick the lower dollar options over the higher dollar options. Then lets say the car was available tonight at the dealership and it was worth $15k and you made a new poll that said "Would you pay 10k for this car?". Nearly everyone would pay 10k for it despite the fact that the earlier poll made it seem like most people only wanted to pay a few thousand dollars.
 
#24
I'm not sure I'm quite following you. You asked people to pick what deals they would make in exchange for Otto Porter and the deal we're talking about is the richest of the deals you listed since it involves giving up all the players. More people picked expirings + Skal over expirings +WCS/Skal/JJ because of course more people would like to give up less to get more.

It's like if I posted a poll saying "How much would you pay for this car?" and I gave the options of $1k, $2k, etc all the way up to $8k. More people would pick the lower dollar options over the higher dollar options. Then lets say the car was available tonight at the dealership and it was worth $15k and you made a new poll that said "Would you pay 10k for this car?". Nearly everyone would pay 10k for it despite the fact that the earlier poll made it seem like most people only wanted to pay a few thousand dollars.
It's possible, but at the end of the day, the poll asked what deals would you make at the trade deadline. If you'd buy a car for $8K, you should (by logic) buy the car at $7K, but again, people weren't understanding/reading the instructions/question.
 
#25
I think that they kept rebuffing our efforts and so we shifted to Barnes. Because with this deal they may let Parker walk next year but they're gonna give a big contract to Satoransky and stay in repeater territory.