The PERFECT deal: Wiz/Kings

S

Smills91

Starter
This is so simple and yet such a good fit for both teams that I'd be more surprised if it DOESN'T happen than if it does. I see this deal going down this off-season...

Kings deal: John Salmons

Wizards deal: Brendan Haywood

Wizards shore up their backcourt rotations which would consist of Gilbert/Daniels/Salmons/Butler while moving a disgruntled player from their roster. Also with Pecherov coming over that adds another frontcourt player to the Wizards line-up.

Kings free up the logjam at the swingman spots and opens up minutes for Garcia/Douby/Price to get more burn while addressing the athleticism position at the center position.

I love this idea. Haywood may not be an all-star center but he'd be a serviceable option as a back-up or a starter. His salary is reasonable and he brings what we need...shot-blocking/rebounding and would give Geoff the flexibility to take the absolute BPA regardless of position rather than attempting to address the frontcourt via the draft.
 
I'm not sure. It barely makes us better (if at all) and do we really want to be even more mediocre? I'd rather go the rebuild route. This is the type of trade that would really benefit a team that was just trying to tighten up loose ends in order to have a better shot at a chip.
 
Why the short-sightedness here? There's not going to be a silver bullet of 1 trade that magically makes us contenders. However, what this deal accomplishes is gets us a veteran, athletic big who can block shots and rebound. It also opens up the logjam at the 1-2-3 positions and would give more minutes to Garcia/Douby/Price and allow them to develop. FWIW, Haywood's contract is similar to Salmons' and is a big. He could be a solid starter or a great back-up at that price. It basically balances our roster and if a future deal involving Brad Miller were to surface we wouldn't have to worry about getting a center back and can look for the best return. I jsut find it funny that so many on here are quick to criticize big trades involving the bigger names, but quickly dismiss trades that tweak with role players that fit the style of play that Petrie is obviously trying to assemble(up temple/defensive). Not to mention we'd now have TWO players over 6'9" which is a HUGE sticking point in so many posts of NBrans. I think the trade makes sense and is equitable for both sides.
 
Smills91 said:
Why the short-sightedness here? There's not going to be a silver bullet of 1 trade that magically makes us contenders. However, what this deal accomplishes is gets us a veteran, athletic big who can block shots and rebound. It also opens up the logjam at the 1-2-3 positions and would give more minutes to Garcia/Douby/Price and allow them to develop. FWIW, Haywood's contract is similar to Salmons' and is a big. He could be a solid starter or a great back-up at that price. It basically balances our roster and if a future deal involving Brad Miller were to surface we wouldn't have to worry about getting a center back and can look for the best return. I jsut find it funny that so many on here are quick to criticize big trades involving the bigger names, but quickly dismiss trades that tweak with role players that fit the style of play that Petrie is obviously trying to assemble(up temple/defensive). Not to mention we'd now have TWO players over 6'9" which is a HUGE sticking point in so many posts of NBrans. I think the trade makes sense and is equitable for both sides.
Click to expand...

Ironic that you're calling people shortsighted when this is about as short-sighted a move as you can make.

As I know you know, Haywood is a fantastically underachieving center who can hardly be motivated, was pretty much loathed by Washington, benched in favor of someone who is vastly less talented, and is about to be run out of town. What in the world do the Kings want with this guy? What does he accomplish, other than to have an unmotivated seven footer on your bench?

Salmons is a glue guy, he was arguably as good of a defender than Artest for much of the year (or at least more consistent), and he could be packaged for a team that can use a guy like him.

Ultimately, sure, it's probably a talent/productivity wash, which is why it's not a horrible idea, it just doesn't really accomplish anything. Haywood is not going to make this team better, and having him on the roster only prolongs the Kings' misery in the frontcourt.
 
nbrans said:
What does he accomplish, other than to have an unmotivated seven footer on your bench?
Click to expand...

He can compliment an unmotivated 7 foot Center and an unmotivated 6'7" PF currently on our roster for the next 3 years??
 
nbrans said:
Ironic that you're calling people shortsighted when this is about as short-sighted a move as you can make.

As I know you know, Haywood is a fantastically underachieving center who can hardly be motivated, was pretty much loathed by Washington, benched in favor of someone who is vastly less talented, and is about to be run out of town. What in the world do the Kings want with this guy? What does he accomplish, other than to have an unmotivated seven footer on your bench?

Salmons is a glue guy, he was arguably as good of a defender than Artest for much of the year (or at least more consistent), and he could be packaged for a team that can use a guy like him.

Ultimately, sure, it's probably a talent/productivity wash, which is why it's not a horrible idea, it just doesn't really accomplish anything. Haywood is not going to make this team better, and having him on the roster only prolongs the Kings' misery in the frontcourt.
Click to expand...
Even if it is exactly how you see it, which I agree on some points and disagree on others, it balances the roster out, fills a need in the frontcourt AND shaves another year off a contract. It's quite possible this team will not see salary cap relief to sign a free agent until 2010.
 
Smills91 said:
Even if it is exactly how you see it, which I agree on some points and disagree on others, it balances the roster out, fills a need in the frontcourt AND shaves another year off a contract. It's quite possible this team will not see salary cap relief to sign a free agent until 2010.
Click to expand...

It definitely won't if we make moves like this.
 
Smills91 said:
I love this idea. Haywood may not be an all-star center but he'd be a serviceable option as a back-up or a starter. His salary is reasonable and he brings what we need...shot-blocking/rebounding and would give Geoff the flexibility to take the absolute BPA regardless of position rather than attempting to address the frontcourt via the draft.
Click to expand...

But I'd be interested to know how you handle Haywood when he becomes disgruntled and a locker room cancer due to lack of playing time (he wants to start and play 35 mins a game). And which side will you take when Haywood fuel with Brad Miller just like he did with Ethan Thomas?
 
beb0p said:
But I'd be interested to know how you handle Haywood when he becomes disgruntled and a locker room cancer due to lack of playing time (he wants to start and play 35 mins a game). And which side will you take when Haywood fuel with Brad Miller just like he did with Ethan Thomas?
Click to expand...


You don't think Haywood would see 25+ minutes a night with the state of our frontcourt? You think BRAD MILLER of all people would get under Haywoods skin. You guys are like all the ron haters on the realgm board...totally over exaggerating a player (in)effectiveness based on an isolated circumstance.
 
I think the trade is OK. Lets say we moved Brad to PF, and started Haywood at C. That actually might make us a bit better than we are now.

the pros: I know what you are all thinknig. If Miller can't guard a C how will he guard a PF? Well to me it does not matter. Centers blew by him as if they were a guard. PF will do the same. At least now we have a 7" in the paint to guard it rather than a 6'7 PF who cant block shots, and anotehr 6'9 PF who is considered worst in the league defensively. This will at least fill the center slot, and if we were to draft a PF like Yi than he could spend a year or two behind Miller/Haywood to develop, than we can have Brad come off the bench after a year.

The cons: Miller is on his downslide, getting slower and slower and slower and slower. Starting him at PF will make the team as a whole much slower than we are now. Two slow 7 footers that can't run the floor will in essence make us a 3 on 5 team for teams that run and gun.
 
There's another downside. John Salmons has proven himself to be a valuable player off the bench. That's a given. We don't have any idea if or how Haywood would work out. I don't think Petrie is going to be going for mediocre this time around. He's said he's going to be aggressive and, to me, aggressive does not mean Brendan Haywood.
 
Smills91 said:
Well if Brad/Kenny/SAR are really as untradeable as so many say, then we shed a year off of Salmons deal and would be able to get significantly under the cap by 2010.
Click to expand...

The Salmons deal is not putting us over the cap or breaking the bank. Quite frankly- I think the guy is one of the few Kings that comes close to earning his salary. Shedding his 5 million dollars one year early is not the solution to suddenly being under the cap.

The only way you get under the cap AND have a good team is if you are not wildly overpaying players. That means that the key to getting under the cap and staying competitive is finding ways to move the overpaid players like KT, Miller, and Bibby, but also getting talent in return. The only way you move some of those contracts is by giving teams something else that they want at a reasonable price.

I think NBRANS point was that you can get a lot more for John Salmons than one year of cap relief. He could be attractive to certain teams because of his ability to defend so many positions and be a Shane Battier type glue guy. If you don't want to keep Salmons (and I think we should keep him- he is a good fit) then his best value is not in a straight up trade, but in some sort of package with someone you are trying to unload (like Bibby, Miller, KT) so that the receiving team gets more bang for their buck. Artest, Garcia, and SAR (all with contracts that come close to mirroring their actual skill level) are also useful in that regard. They can all be used to make a team that really wants Bibby,Miller, KT swallow just a bit easier when taking on their contracts...

By the way- I realize that the list of teams wanting Kenny Thomas is probably zero...
 
Last edited:
Smills91 said:
You don't think Haywood would see 25+ minutes a night with the state of our frontcourt? You think BRAD MILLER of all people would get under Haywoods skin. You guys are like all the ron haters on the realgm board...totally over exaggerating a player (in)effectiveness based on an isolated circumstance.
Click to expand...

Haywood DOESN'T want 25 mins. He wants 35 mins! He WANTS STARTER MINS. Is that so hard to understand? He will fuel with anyone who is stopping him from that starting job. Anyone. Including Milller.

And Haywood won't get 25 mins even. Not with Miller, Justin, and SAR in the front court. All of them are more dependable than the inconsistent Haywood, imo. I'd rather give mins to Justin than Haywood. And that's assumming KT doesn't regain his position under the new coach and we don't draft/sign a PF/C.

So the question again. How do you handle Haywood once he becomes disgruntled again?
 
Last edited:
VF21 said:
There's another downside. John Salmons has proven himself to be a valuable player off the bench. That's a given. We don't have any idea if or how Haywood would work out. I don't think Petrie is going to be going for mediocre this time around. He's said he's going to be aggressive and, to me, aggressive does not mean Brendan Haywood.
Click to expand...
Just curious if you had the link to where Petris said he was going to be aggressive this off-season? I don't recall seeing that. I would love to read that though.
 
It's in an interview from the Bee that was posted here, I think. I'll try to find it if I get a chance.
 
Last edited:
the trade is bad... if it were thomas for haywood and darius then yeah... but not salmons...
 
Smills91 said:
This is so simple and yet such a good fit for both teams that I'd be more surprised if it DOESN'T happen than if it does. I see this deal going down this off-season...

Kings deal: John Salmons

Wizards deal: Brendan Haywood

Wizards shore up their backcourt rotations which would consist of Gilbert/Daniels/Salmons/Butler while moving a disgruntled player from their roster. Also with Pecherov coming over that adds another frontcourt player to the Wizards line-up.

Kings free up the logjam at the swingman spots and opens up minutes for Garcia/Douby/Price to get more burn while addressing the athleticism position at the center position.

I love this idea. Haywood may not be an all-star center but he'd be a serviceable option as a back-up or a starter. His salary is reasonable and he brings what we need...shot-blocking/rebounding and would give Geoff the flexibility to take the absolute BPA regardless of position rather than attempting to address the frontcourt via the draft.
Click to expand...

I don't love the idea, but I like it. Big for Small of equal talent is a good rule to trade by. Especially when we have a very similar player to Salmons in Garcia.

Garcia steps in to Salmons role, and we get a decent defensive backup big. Not sure what's so bad about that. :confused:
 
VF21 said:
There's another downside. John Salmons has proven himself to be a valuable player off the bench. That's a given. We don't have any idea if or how Haywood would work out. I don't think Petrie is going to be going for mediocre this time around. He's said he's going to be aggressive and, to me, aggressive does not mean Brendan Haywood.
Click to expand...

Well to me, an aggressive GM is one that makes a lot of moves. Standing pat when a possible small for big deal is available is not aggressive.

We all see how difficult it is to get even decent defensive bigs, I wouldn't pass on this if given the chance.
 
To be fair, Smills isn't trying to pass this off as the complete rebuilding package, as it seems he's getting hammered for. I'm not all against this deal, especially if a a more agressive Artest or Bibby deal brings another swing into the fold. There's going to be a minutes crunch with Martin/Artest (or replacement)/Salmons/Garcia and maybe Douby, so if you want to see Garcia get some more burn this year, starting next season without Salmons isn't the end of the world. And while far from the final answer, adding Haywood into the fold of a new frontcourt wouldn't be the end of the world either. I'd do it, but only if it was the best we could get for Salmons.
 
walker60 said:
I don't love the idea, but I like it. Big for Small of equal talent is a good rule to trade by. Especially when we have a very similar player to Salmons in Garcia.

Garcia steps in to Salmons role, and we get a decent defensive backup big. Not sure what's so bad about that. :confused:
Click to expand...
Yeah it's not a bad deal. I'd rather pay a seven footer $5.5 million a year than a backup swingman.
 
LPKingsFan said:
To be fair, Smills isn't trying to pass this off as the complete rebuilding package, as it seems he's getting hammered for. I'm not all against this deal, especially if a a more agressive Artest or Bibby deal brings another swing into the fold. There's going to be a minutes crunch with Martin/Artest (or replacement)/Salmons/Garcia and maybe Douby, so if you want to see Garcia get some more burn this year, starting next season without Salmons isn't the end of the world. And while far from the final answer, adding Haywood into the fold of a new frontcourt wouldn't be the end of the world either. I'd do it, but only if it was the best we could get for Salmons.
Click to expand...


Finally, someone who sees what I see. Great post, thanks.
 
Other than being a decent C, the negatives far outweigh the positives for getting Haywood. He has proven to be a cancer and distraction to his team. We are trying to rid ourselves of those players (Ron, KT) not bring another one in.

Salmons has proven to be a decent reserve who can defend 3 positions and score a bit. He is also a bit of a glue for the team. He brings far more intangibles to the team than his stats suggest.

I would rather take a gamble on a young big such as Darko and/or Amir Johnson and bring back Williams than get someone who is a proven distraction. I would rather we give Williams mroe game time than bring in Haywood to take away minutes from Justin and ***** and moan about not getting starter minutes in the process.
 
LPKingsFan said:
To be fair, Smills isn't trying to pass this off as the complete rebuilding package, as it seems he's getting hammered for. I'm not all against this deal, especially if a a more agressive Artest or Bibby deal brings another swing into the fold. There's going to be a minutes crunch with Martin/Artest (or replacement)/Salmons/Garcia and maybe Douby, so if you want to see Garcia get some more burn this year, starting next season without Salmons isn't the end of the world. And while far from the final answer, adding Haywood into the fold of a new frontcourt wouldn't be the end of the world either. I'd do it, but only if it was the best we could get for Salmons.
Click to expand...

My problem with these is that Smills has posted a number of trade ideas and I'm quite frankly totally confused as to which ones of them would go together, which would stand apart, which overlap, etc.

I don't see this particular trade as doing much since we end up with Haywood, who just doesn't impress me. I think if we do package Salmons somehow that we could probably get something better in return than a malcontent center who, depending on what else Petrie was able to do, might just sit there underutilized. My thought is we need to concentrate on getting the best possible trades for what we give AND not settle for someone else's problems or mediocre players. And to me, Brendan Haywood - who really burnt me on a fantasy league - is the epitome of mediocre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
Lakers may cut ties with Austin Reaves in massive swap for $186 million Kings big to help LeBron, Luka
Replies
2
Views
379
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
Spike
What Do The Kings Mean to You?
Replies
6
Views
461
Siranthony
S
S
  • Locked
Sports Illustrated Offseason Kings Articles
Replies
9
Views
2K
Sports Illustrated Inside the Kings News
S
QWERTYLICIOUS
  • Locked
[Game] Kings @ Mavericks, 1/27/2024, 6:00p PT/9:00p ET
9 10 11
Replies
306
Views
9K
ick300
I
Tetsujin
Jake Fisher article: Sabonis extension expected to be around 4years/120 million
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
6K
KainLear
KainLear
Back
Top