Possibility of sign and trade?

[NoBonus]

I have been looking at the restricted and unrestricted free agents out there, and I wonder if a team would be willing to do a sign and trade where the Kings just give up Kenny Thomas' ending contract for a player the team has no ability to sign + filler. Maybe Utah (Millsap), Orlando (Hedo), NYK (Lee) or LA (Ariza).

Thoughts? Seems like this could be a win/win for a lot of teams.

 

[SacKings7]

Doesn't make any sense for the other team to do it, as they'd just be paying KT for a year whereas if they just lost the player they're trading, they wouldn't be paying anybody in his place. Unless they are thinking about the trade deadline and want to pick up pieces to help trade for that player to push them over the edge.

Either way, I think KT alone does nothing. They'd need something of value in return, a future pick or something.

 

[bajaden]

The only way this would work is if were trading with a team thats willing to part with a player with more than a one year contract in order to create cap space for 2010. For instance if we were interested in, lets say Kirilenko. We could trade KT along with some of our cap space to make the trade work.

Thats why I thought a Nocioni plus cap space for Hedo in a sign and trade would be a good deal. As it turns out the Magic are already a couple of mil over the cap without even making any deals. So I doubt they would be willing to take on Nocioni's contract.

 

[kingsfan101]

The only way this would work is if were trading with a team thats willing to part with a player with more than a one year contract in order to create cap space for 2010. For instance if we were interested in, lets say Kirilenko. We could trade KT along with some of our cap space to make the trade work.

Thats why I thought a Nocioni plus cap space for Hedo in a sign and trade would be a good deal. As it turns out the Magic are already a couple of mil over the cap without even making any deals. So I doubt they would be willing to take on Nocioni's contract.

Or if we use our cap space to deal with a team paying tax to take on one or more enders, totaling more than KT. This can help the other team reduce their tax obligations, or get under it.

Of course, we shall need some payback for that, in terms of prospects/picks.

Rockets is one team I can think of. There is lot of uncertainty with Yao. They are likely to go over the tax, if they feel he can come back during the season, and they can compete. They have a huge ender in Tracy, who has burnt his bridges, and might not play much this season.

If they commit to Artest, Gortat, etc., and don't find themselves going much around the trade deadline, they might take KT, Noc off our hand, and give us Tracy + something in return. I haven't done the numbers in realgm to see if the trade works or not, but something along these lines, might. It shall reduce their tax obligations, and give them a decent player at the cost of a prospect or so.

Of course, if their owner is willing to pay tax, they might be able to trade Tracy to Raps for Bosh. Depends on how much Raps think Bosh might bolt, and what other pieces are offered.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Or if we use our cap space to deal with a team paying tax to take on one or more enders, totaling more than KT. This can help the other team reduce their tax obligations, or get under it.

Of course, we shall need some payback for that, in terms of prospects/picks.

While I'm not crazy about Kirilenko, I wonder how willing the Jazz (in the tax before resigning Millsap) would be to let go of Boozer (who they expected to opt out) in a money-saving deal. I'd go for basically any non-youngster deal that gave up all of our cap space to bring Boozer in, even for only one year.

 

[kingsfan101]

While I'm not crazy about Kirilenko, I wonder how willing the Jazz (in the tax before resigning Millsap) would be to let go of Boozer (who they expected to opt out) in a money-saving deal. I'd go for basically any non-youngster deal that gave up all of our cap space to bring Boozer in, even for only one year.

Based on lot of comments, I guess I am in a minority. However, I firmly believe that we should not be bringing in a major guy like Boozer. We need to focus on young, cheap prospects, and let the kids grow.

Let me give my reasons. We won 17 games last year. To that team, we have brought in 3 rookies, and a backup PG. We have a new coach on the sidelines, who hasn't coached in a while, and was our second choice. That's it.

Even if we assume major improvements all across, we might win 27 games, which would still be a significant improvement from last year. If we bring in Boozer, we might win 35-40.

Either way, we are not making the play-offs. We might be good enough to keep the fan base excited for some time, but not much beyond that. Of course, more wins shall decrease our chances of a high pick. Plus, Boozer shall take minutes away from JT.

If he opts out, we are roughly at the same place next year, but with a lower pick (we might have been able to get rid of a veteran contract though).

And if he doesn't opt out of his final year, we have him around another year, where we might make the playoffs, but won't go far. Given that potential FAs usually take these decisions after the draft, we can't deal him for any draft day trades either.

I feel the best plan for us is to suck another year. It's tough, but it shall probably push us up faster. Hopefully, we can use our cap space to save some other team some tax, and add some picks. Then with these picks, a potentially young, exciting core, and some FA money (though half the league is trying to get under the cap then), we might be relevant again.

 

[NoBonus]

Based on lot of comments, I guess I am in a minority. However, I firmly believe that we should not be bringing in a major guy like Boozer. We need to focus on young, cheap prospects, and let the kids grow.

Let me give my reasons. We won 17 games last year. To that team, we have brought in 3 rookies, and a backup PG. We have a new coach on the sidelines, who hasn't coached in a while, and was our second choice. That's it.

Even if we assume major improvements all across, we might win 27 games, which would still be a significant improvement from last year. If we bring in Boozer, we might win 35-40.

Either way, we are not making the play-offs. We might be good enough to keep the fan base excited for some time, but not much beyond that. Of course, more wins shall decrease our chances of a high pick. Plus, Boozer shall take minutes away from JT.

If he opts out, we are roughly at the same place next year, but with a lower pick (we might have been able to get rid of a veteran contract though).

And if he doesn't opt out of his final year, we have him around another year, where we might make the playoffs, but won't go far. Given that potential FAs usually take these decisions after the draft, we can't deal him for any draft day trades either.

I feel the best plan for us is to suck another year. It's tough, but it shall probably push us up faster. Hopefully, we can use our cap space to save some other team some tax, and add some picks. Then with these picks, a potentially young, exciting core, and some FA money (though half the league is trying to get under the cap then), we might be relevant again.

I hear that. My thought is trade out our veterans like Chapu, K9, Beno, etc and get a long term solution or cap space. So, example, what if you can get a young talents SF like Ariza who could be a long term solution for a Chapu and/or K9's contract... (obviously not a realistic example). Ultimately, the lineup is pretty much set, they just need more talent to develop, so unless a trade is made, I would prefer the Kings just sign some guys from camp to fill the roster.

 

[Gary]

Based on lot of comments, I guess I am in a minority. However, I firmly believe that we should not be bringing in a major guy like Boozer. We need to focus on young, cheap prospects, and let the kids grow.

Let me give my reasons. We won 17 games last year. To that team, we have brought in 3 rookies, and a backup PG. We have a new coach on the sidelines, who hasn't coached in a while, and was our second choice. That's it.

Even if we assume major improvements all across, we might win 27 games, which would still be a significant improvement from last year. If we bring in Boozer, we might win 35-40.

Either way, we are not making the play-offs. We might be good enough to keep the fan base excited for some time, but not much beyond that. Of course, more wins shall decrease our chances of a high pick. Plus, Boozer shall take minutes away from JT.

If he opts out, we are roughly at the same place next year, but with a lower pick (we might have been able to get rid of a veteran contract though).

And if he doesn't opt out of his final year, we have him around another year, where we might make the playoffs, but won't go far. Given that potential FAs usually take these decisions after the draft, we can't deal him for any draft day trades either.

I feel the best plan for us is to suck another year. It's tough, but it shall probably push us up faster. Hopefully, we can use our cap space to save some other team some tax, and add some picks. Then with these picks, a potentially young, exciting core, and some FA money (though half the league is trying to get under the cap then), we might be relevant again.

Couldn't have said it better myself. As it stands now any position could use improvement outside of the SG (because of the scoring we are getting from Martin isn't easy to duplicate). This team isn't going to win more than 30 games next season so rather than worrying about FA nobodies in their late 20s or early 30s might as well see what we have first.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Based on lot of comments, I guess I am in a minority. However, I firmly believe that we should not be bringing in a major guy like Boozer. We need to focus on young, cheap prospects, and let the kids grow.

Let me give my reasons. We won 17 games last year. To that team, we have brought in 3 rookies, and a backup PG. We have a new coach on the sidelines, who hasn't coached in a while, and was our second choice. That's it.

Even if we assume major improvements all across, we might win 27 games, which would still be a significant improvement from last year. If we bring in Boozer, we might win 35-40.

Either way, we are not making the play-offs.

I thought throughout the year that we were better than our record. Not great shakes, but I think we could have been a 25-28 win team with a few lucky bounces and a better coach. Throw in improvement from Hawes, Thompson, Greene, a healthy Martin (can't guarantee that), and add in Boozer and hopefully meaningful contributions from Evans, and I don't think 41-45 is out of reach. Of course, a lot of that is Boozer and optimism for Evans, but it could happen.

Plus, Boozer shall take minutes away from JT.

He doesn't have to. There are 96 frontcourt minutes. If we were to split them 32 apiece for Hawes, Thompson, and Boozer that would work fine.

If he opts out, we are roughly at the same place next year, but with a lower pick (we might have been able to get rid of a veteran contract though).

And if he doesn't opt out of his final year, we have him around another year, where we might make the playoffs, but won't go far. Given that potential FAs usually take these decisions after the draft, we can't deal him for any draft day trades either.

Actually, this year was Boozer's option year. To the best I can tell he's on a one-year deal at this point and is a free agent next year. Of course, the idea behind getting Boozer would be to try to keep him. We're committed to somewhere around $40M next summer but if we can offload either Noc or Beno we'd have enough room to sign Boozer without going over the cap (we could if we wanted, as he would be our own FA, but we would actually have a hint of breathing room).

That would give us Boozer, Hawes and Thompson in a solid three-man rotation up front with vet Boozer and two rising kids, Martin and Garcia the wing veterans with Greene and Casspi coming up behind them, and hopefully an emerging Evans holding down the point. I think that seems like a decent nucleus to build around, especially if Evans does turn out to be "the best player in the draft".

That plan is pretty dependent on Evans. If Evans is DWade, we're good to go. If Evans is Stuckey, we're probably 7-8 seeds for a long time. Either way, it would stop the bleeding. I know I don't want to lose 65 games again next year, no matter how great John Wall is...the pessimism all around would kill me.

 

[fxhsurjono]

yea again i agree, i think last year we were a better team than a 17 win team, i blame largely on kenny natt. i think we should at least win 25 games, AT LEAST! and thats before we add any1 via trades or FA's now we a better coach, all the youngs getting better i think 30+ wins isnt' a reach. we can prolly do better with added FA's. i dont think boozer is a good fit for us anyway. iono whos a good fit for us right now...

 

[HighTopKicks]

I thought throughout the year that we were better than our record. Not great shakes, but I think we could have been a 25-28 win team with a few lucky bounces and a better coach. Throw in improvement from Hawes, Thompson, Greene, a healthy Martin (can't guarantee that), and add in Boozer and hopefully meaningful contributions from Evans, and I don't think 41-45 is out of reach. Of course, a lot of that is Boozer and optimism for Evans, but it could happen.



He doesn't have to. There are 96 frontcourt minutes. If we were to split them 32 apiece for Hawes, Thompson, and Boozer that would work fine.



Actually, this year was Boozer's option year. To the best I can tell he's on a one-year deal at this point and is a free agent next year. Of course, the idea behind getting Boozer would be to try to keep him. We're committed to somewhere around $40M next summer but if we can offload either Noc or Beno we'd have enough room to sign Boozer without going over the cap (we could if we wanted, as he would be our own FA, but we would actually have a hint of breathing room).

That would give us Boozer, Hawes and Thompson in a solid three-man rotation up front with vet Boozer and two rising kids, Martin and Garcia the wing veterans with Greene and Casspi coming up behind them, and hopefully an emerging Evans holding down the point. I think that seems like a decent nucleus to build around, especially if Evans does turn out to be "the best player in the draft".

That plan is pretty dependent on Evans. If Evans is DWade, we're good to go. If Evans is Stuckey, we're probably 7-8 seeds for a long time. Either way, it would stop the bleeding. I know I don't want to lose 65 games again next year, no matter how great John Wall is...the pessimism all around would kill me.

How many added wins Boozer would add is debateable, so I won't go into it. Having a 3 big rotation works but isn't necessarily the best senario. A 3 man rotation with Boozer, Spencer & JT, make JT a backup PF & backup Center. Personally, I'd rather see JT learn to play PF for 36mpg then play 12mpg at PF & Center. This is his 2nd yr, and I think we retarded his development enough the 1st yr having play all 3 front line positions.

We've read a lot of comments that we need a defensive rebounder and shot blocker to backup Spencer, and JT really isn't there yet. So, I'd rather see us spend Boozer's $12M and 2 real backups. Hopefully, young guys that might develop in great role players or starter. If we're not making the playoffs with Boozer, than why do we need him, especially if he leaves after one yr for a big payday on a contending team?

We're trying to rebuild into a playoff contender. One yr from any talented Vet, doesn't help our develpment. They certainly don't make their backups any better than PT and a good coach would do. A few more wins and a worse position in the draft is all that's insured. So, unless you believe GP can continue to pull stars out of the draft in position #14 thru #20. After this lottory, I don't have any hope that we'll get the #1 no matter where we end up.

 

[kingsfan101]

I thought throughout the year that we were better than our record. Not great shakes, but I think we could have been a 25-28 win team with a few lucky bounces and a better coach. Throw in improvement from Hawes, Thompson, Greene, a healthy Martin (can't guarantee that), and add in Boozer and hopefully meaningful contributions from Evans, and I don't think 41-45 is out of reach. Of course, a lot of that is Boozer and optimism for Evans, but it could happen.



He doesn't have to. There are 96 frontcourt minutes. If we were to split them 32 apiece for Hawes, Thompson, and Boozer that would work fine.



Actually, this year was Boozer's option year. To the best I can tell he's on a one-year deal at this point and is a free agent next year. Of course, the idea behind getting Boozer would be to try to keep him. We're committed to somewhere around $40M next summer but if we can offload either Noc or Beno we'd have enough room to sign Boozer without going over the cap (we could if we wanted, as he would be our own FA, but we would actually have a hint of breathing room).

That would give us Boozer, Hawes and Thompson in a solid three-man rotation up front with vet Boozer and two rising kids, Martin and Garcia the wing veterans with Greene and Casspi coming up behind them, and hopefully an emerging Evans holding down the point. I think that seems like a decent nucleus to build around, especially if Evans does turn out to be "the best player in the draft".

That plan is pretty dependent on Evans. If Evans is DWade, we're good to go. If Evans is Stuckey, we're probably 7-8 seeds for a long time. Either way, it would stop the bleeding. I know I don't want to lose 65 games again next year, no matter how great John Wall is...the pessimism all around would kill me.

Several valid points. I was mistaken about Boozer's contract. Thought he had option for another year too. And yes, I also thought we were slightly better than 17 wins (though only marginally), and I too don't want to endure another 65 loss season.

That said, I don't think signing Boozer is the solution, even on a one year rental. You can't plan your future on a rookie turning into Wade. If he really is that good, we shall see improvement this year, and hopefully, next year, with a high draft pick (or picks), we shall be an attractive destination for free agents.

 

[jopatmc]

How about a S&T of Diogu along with Nocioni, Kenny Thomas, and Francisco Garcia to Houston for McGrady's expiring contract, Chase Budinger, and a future 2nd rounder?

 

[Aenadin]

A resigned ike diogu, Kenny Thomas, donte, for Gallinari and Eddy Curry they

or straight up garcia and kt for E.C. and Gallo.. i really think Gallo can fit in the princeton more than Donte IMO

 

[fxhsurjono]

How about a S&T of Diogu along with Nocioni, Kenny Thomas, and Francisco Garcia to Houston for McGrady's expiring contract, Chase Budinger, and a future 2nd rounder?

i actually like this idea, but i dont think houston would want garcia and nocioni, theyd want kmart.

 

[fxhsurjono]

A resigned ike diogu, Kenny Thomas, donte, for Gallinari and Eddy Curry they

or straight up garcia and kt for E.C. and Gallo.. i really think Gallo can fit in the princeton more than Donte IMO

no no no, were not taking eddy curry's fat *** contract, or his fat *** self.