The Kings and Freeagency:

Maybe it was discussed and I missed it, but apparently Kings are interested in Turiaf. I don't mind Hayes, but I will be majorly pissed if we signed Turiaf.
 
Dime Dropper said:
Maybe it was discussed and I missed it, but apparently Kings are interested in Turiaf. I don't mind Hayes, but I will be majorly pissed if we signed Turiaf.
Click to expand...

Think he's under contract and would have to be acquired in trade?

There is an eerie return to defenseless players and undersized bigs though that is making me squirm. Let's hope its some classic Petrie misdirection.
 
Last edited:
rainmaker said:
Sorry, but you're not even making sense. He walks, they get nothing. By signing an ext with LA, they got all those players in return. So saying he didn't help them makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The one thing you are forgetting, and one of the things that apparently riled up the owners, is that in addition to getting the players NO would have taken on an awful lot of salary that would prevent them from making future moves. Rarely does a team trade away the best player in the deal and also cripple their financial situation at the same time. Normally they want to see young (rookie-contract) players, picks, and expirings coming back to give them flexibility. That wasn't happening here, other than one pick.

As a league-owned team, the owners felt that saddling that team with such a financial burden wasn't in the league's best interest. And that is entirely within their right.

You say they would have ended up with nothing? They also wouldn't have ended up with the contracts they would be saddled with if the trade went through.

The league owns the team. The owners have a say as the owners. CP3 can go kick rocks if he thinks he should be able to dictate where he goes while still under contract. If he doesn't like where he is, then maybe he should suck it up, play out the contract he willingly signed, and go take less money as a FA next summer if it is that important to him.

And while it may suck for NO to not be able to make any trade it wants, the owners have a right to approve or veto any proposed trade. That is what they did here. Just like any other owner in the league.
 
rainmaker said:
Sorry, but you're not even making sense. He walks, they get nothing. By signing an ext with LA, they got all those players in return. So saying he didn't help them makes no sense.

You're third sentence is complete speculation. You have no idea where he'd sign as a FA.

You seem so caught up in be pissed CP3 is going to be a FA, you haven't looked at the bigger picture. You're the only one I've seen saying Stern nixing a deal like this is good for the league. Every story or tweet I've seen from a known journalist or NBA executive, all realize how bad this is for the league. How scary of a precedent it sets. Yet you appear to be more concerned with disliking a completely legal trade, under this system, which the league office new about all along. What Stern did has far more ramifications for the league, then this proposed trade would have.
Click to expand...


The thought just occurred to me: Is this the NBA's answer to not dealing with this Lebron James syndrome in the collective bargaining act? Maybe in retrospect, Stern would have nixed the James deal.
 
Warhawk said:
The one thing you are forgetting, and one of the things that apparently riled up the owners, is that in addition to getting the players NO would have taken on an awful lot of salary that would prevent them from making future moves. Rarely does a team trade away the best player in the deal and also cripple their financial situation at the same time. Normally they want to see young (rookie-contract) players, picks, and expirings coming back to give them flexibility. That wasn't happening here, other than one pick.

As a league-owned team, the owners felt that saddling that team with such a financial burden wasn't in the league's best interest. And that is entirely within their right.

You say they would have ended up with nothing? They also wouldn't have ended up with the contracts they would be saddled with if the trade went through.

The league owns the team. The owners have a say as the owners. CP3 can go kick rocks if he thinks he should be able to dictate where he goes while still under contract. If he doesn't like where he is, then maybe he should suck it up, play out the contract he willingly signed, and go take less money as a FA next summer if it is that important to him.

And while it may suck for NO to not be able to make any trade it wants, the owners have a right to approve or veto any proposed trade. That is what they did here. Just like any other owner in the league.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
MassachusettsKingsFan said:
I have not seen the Kings mentioned specifically, but the Knicks have '5 teams lined up to dump Turiaf on' when the Chandler signing goes through.
Click to expand...
do-not-want-dog.jpg
 
Warhawk said:
The one thing you are forgetting, and one of the things that apparently riled up the owners, is that in addition to getting the players NO would have taken on an awful lot of salary that would prevent them from making future moves. Rarely does a team trade away the best player in the deal and also cripple their financial situation at the same time. Normally they want to see young (rookie-contract) players, picks, and expirings coming back to give them flexibility. That wasn't happening here, other than one pick.

As a league-owned team, the owners felt that saddling that team with such a financial burden wasn't in the league's best interest. And that is entirely within their right.

You say they would have ended up with nothing? They also wouldn't have ended up with the contracts they would be saddled with if the trade went through.

The league owns the team. The owners have a say as the owners. CP3 can go kick rocks if he thinks he should be able to dictate where he goes while still under contract. If he doesn't like where he is, then maybe he should suck it up, play out the contract he willingly signed, and go take less money as a FA next summer if it is that important to him.

And while it may suck for NO to not be able to make any trade it wants, the owners have a right to approve or veto any proposed trade. That is what they did here. Just like any other owner in the league.
Click to expand...

This was helpful, thanks for the clarity.
 
Warhawk said:
The one thing you are forgetting, and one of the things that apparently riled up the owners, is that in addition to getting the players NO would have taken on an awful lot of salary that would prevent them from making future moves. Rarely does a team trade away the best player in the deal and also cripple their financial situation at the same time. Normally they want to see young (rookie-contract) players, picks, and expirings coming back to give them flexibility. That wasn't happening here, other than one pick.

As a league-owned team, the owners felt that saddling that team with such a financial burden wasn't in the league's best interest. And that is entirely within their right.

You say they would have ended up with nothing? They also wouldn't have ended up with the contracts they would be saddled with if the trade went through.

The league owns the team. The owners have a say as the owners. CP3 can go kick rocks if he thinks he should be able to dictate where he goes while still under contract. If he doesn't like where he is, then maybe he should suck it up, play out the contract he willingly signed, and go take less money as a FA next summer if it is that important to him.

And while it may suck for NO to not be able to make any trade it wants, the owners have a right to approve or veto any proposed trade. That is what they did here. Just like any other owner in the league.
Click to expand...

So where does NO go from here? What trade can they, can they not pursue? Demps kept the league office updated the entire time, and then they block it at the end. Demps had the leagues blessing to trade CP3. So this is ok because the other owners don't think the trade is good enough? That's subjective. What trade is good enough? How do they make a better deal going forward? If they didn't want this, then tell NO they can't trade CP3, period. But once Demps was given the go ahead to trade CP3, then nixing the deal looks horrible.

That's one of my biggest issues. Demps had the go ahead to trade CP3. So whether or not the deal got nixed, relies on the subjective opinion of the other owners, and whether they think the deal is good enough. So what is the better deal the owners would have preferred?

You say the deal wasn't good for NO. I think it was pretty good. But these again are subjective opinions. Where is the fine print, detailing what exactly would have been acceptable in a trade? The league knew NO/LA/Hou were working out this trade, and didn't step in. If dealing with LA was a problem, it should have been cut off weeks ago, when it was first mentioned. But then what, where the list of teams NO was allowed/not allowed to pursue trades with?

You say it's a bad deal for NO, and to protect the business at large, which is the NBA, the owners have the right to nix it. How good the deal is, again, is subjective. Yet, what isn't subjective, is that the NBA gave Demps the ok to trade CP3, and did not say he couldn't deal with the Lakers, which the NBA knew about. So if this was ok by the league, and Stern, to nix the deal, then their should be a list somewhere detailing what teams NO could trade with, which imo, is even worse.
 
rainmaker said:
So where does NO go from here? What trade can they, can they not pursue? Demps kept the league office updated the entire time, and then they block it at the end. Demps had the leagues blessing to trade CP3. So this is ok because the other owners don't think the trade is good enough? That's subjective. What trade is good enough? How do they make a better deal going forward? If they didn't want this, then tell NO they can't trade CP3, period. But once Demps was given the go ahead to trade CP3, then nixing the deal looks horrible.

That's one of my biggest issues. Demps had the go ahead to trade CP3. So whether or not the deal got nixed, relies on the subjective opinion of the other owners, and whether they think the deal is good enough. So what is the better deal the owners would have preferred?

You say the deal wasn't good for NO. I think it was pretty good. But these again are subjective opinions. Where is the fine print, detailing what exactly would have been acceptable in a trade? The league knew NO/LA/Hou were working out this trade, and didn't step in. If dealing with LA was a problem, it should have been cut off weeks ago, when it was first mentioned. But then what, where the list of teams NO was allowed/not allowed to pursue trades with?

You say it's a bad deal for NO, and to protect the business at large, which is the NBA, the owners have the right to nix it. How good the deal is, again, is subjective. Yet, what isn't subjective, is that the NBA gave Demps the ok to trade CP3, and did not say he couldn't deal with the Lakers, which the NBA knew about. So if this was ok by the league, and Stern, to nix the deal, then their should be a list somewhere detailing what teams NO could trade with, which imo, is even worse.
Click to expand...

The league owners issue is with NO taking on salary as they are the ones paying it. Which once again would open the door for an Okafor trade for cap space to complete the CP3 deal.
 
Section 101 said:
The league owners issue is with NO taking on salary as they are the ones paying it. Which once again would open the door for an Okafor trade for cap space to complete the CP3 deal.
Click to expand...

Then where was the fine print, beforehand, stating exactly how much salary NO could, or could not take on? Without the fine print, it's subjective.
 
So, with Thornton at $8M and Hayes at 5M, that leaves us 4-5M to get to the floor. I'm guessing we sign someone like Powe to $2-3M and then try to get to the minimum with a deal closer to the end of the year. Wow, our young guys better show some amazing improvement (especially on the defensive end).
 
rainmaker said:
Then where was the fine print, beforehand, stating exactly how much salary NO could, or could not take on? Without the fine print, it's subjective.
Click to expand...

This started last year with the thornton trade. Cuban was pissed they took on salary in that deal. Basically, the owners want to reduce salary to the min.
 
Now with Hayes and Thornton signed, I try and send JT to Phoenix for Robin Lopez+whatever else we can squeeze out of them.

Phoenix needs someone who can play next to Gortat that can actually rebound the ball, right now the choices for them at PF are Frye, Warrick, and the rookie Morris. Thompson would fit very well there. Lopez is more of a shotblocker defensively and fills the backup C role very well for us. While JT probably has a little more value than Lopez, for me it comes down to style of play and minutes. JT loses a lot of effectiveness when his minutes go down, and will likely be the one who loses the most minutes out of our bigs. Lopez is a better fit for this team as constructed to fill the backup C role, which is where JT will end up finding most of his minutes.
 
kpm308 said:
Now with Hayes and Thornton signed, I try and send JT to Phoenix for Robin Lopez+whatever else we can squeeze out of them.

Phoenix needs someone who can play next to Gortat that can actually rebound the ball, right now the choices for them at PF are Frye, Warrick, and the rookie Morris. Thompson would fit very well there. Lopez is more of a shotblocker defensively and fills the backup C role very well for us. While JT probably has a little more value than Lopez, for me it comes down to style of play and minutes. JT loses a lot of effectiveness when his minutes go down, and will likely be the one who loses the most minutes out of our bigs. Lopez is a better fit for this team as constructed to fill the backup C role, which is where JT will end up finding most of his minutes.
Click to expand...

Lopez for RT would be a good trade, but I'm not sure Phoenix will do it.
 
Rumor is that Turiaf comes with 3 million dollars in cash. I bet Joe and Gavin have the calculator out already. 2.01 % ownership here they come!
 
JB_kings said:
Rumor is that Turiaf comes with 3 million dollars in cash. I bet Joe and Gavin have the calculator out already. 2.01 % ownership here they come!
Click to expand...

I'd actually consider that and I hate ronny. You basically pay him $1 to be a bench shot blocker. Still means you have too many bigs and I don't think he is a solution for our interior d woes, but he's a cheap 1 year guy and he plays hard.
 
sdballer said:
I'd actually consider that and I hate ronny. You basically pay him $1 to be a bench shot blocker. Still means you have too many bigs and I don't think he is a solution for our interior d woes, but he's a cheap 1 year guy and he plays hard.
Click to expand...

Same ole story in Kingsland. Either we ahve o shotblocker, or when we do have won, he's the 4th or 5th big because Geoff apaprently thinks just having one anywhere on the roster is the same thing as having shotblocking.

Your shotblocker has to START, or at least rack up 25 min a night off the bench to count. Otherwise you don't have one.
 
Bricklayer said:
Same ole story in Kingsland. Either we ahve o shotblocker, or when we do have won, he's the 4th or 5th big because Geoff apaprently thinks just having one anywhere on the roster is the same thing as having shotblocking.

Your shotblocker has to START, or at least rack up 25 min a night off the bench to count. Otherwise you don't have one.
Click to expand...

I agree but at this point we're starting hickson, jt or hayes. I'd at least like to have a shot blocker on the team thats worthy of 25 minutes a night. If it only cost 1m for one year, its better than giving that money to leon powe
 
Grant saying that we "shouldn't be surprised to see a big name coming to Sacramento as soon as tomorrow" - did I hear that right???
 
Warhawk said:
Grant saying that we "shouldn't be surprised to see a big name coming to Sacramento as soon as tomorrow" - did I hear that right???
Click to expand...

Grant would never say something like that, unless he knows for sure, it's likely. He hates any speculation about trades. There must be smoke there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Buyout Market
2 3
Replies
87
Views
5K
ShastaKingsFan
ShastaKingsFan
twslam07
Potential Free Agent/Trade/Sign Tracker, '25-'26 Season
6 7 8
Replies
215
Views
838
SacTownKid
SacTownKid
iowamcnabb
“The List”
2 3
Replies
67
Views
4K
midtowner
M
sactowndog
Kings Cap entering next year
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tetsujin
Tetsujin
twslam07
[Drastic Edition] “THE” Trade Deadline Move to Make…
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
twslam07
twslam07
Back
Top