Trade With Bulls this Offseason

#1
Well I've taken the all star break to look around at possibilities to re-tool our team. One of the things the Kings have to figure out is what to do with Buddy Hield, and depending upon circumstances, what to do with Marvin Bagley. Who knows what Bagley (or his dad) are thinking about their future in Sacramento, or if Sacramento still sees Bagley as totally untouchable. The Athletic piece may end in a whimper or it may set off a series of off season moves. We will find out at some point.

Likewise, the Bulls are very disappointing this season. Lavine has pretty close to all star numbers and the Kings chased him before. He actually looks like he would have fit in well.

I know the Kings liked Lauri Markanen before, and he has the potential to do for the Kings what Bjelica does, except he has always carried star potential. He has pretty stagnant numbers this year and there were reports he wanted to move on from Chicago and perhaps Chicago wanted to move on from him.

Due to both teams needing to show improvement sooner rather than later, the following trade may work out well for both teams. I have not run it through a trade checker, so other pieces may need to be added to make the numbers work.

The core of the deal is Buddy Hield and Marvin Bagley to Chicago.

Zach Lavine and Lauri Markanen to Sacramento.

This presumes Chicago likes Bagleys potential but I could see the deal working out for both parties.

This is one of those "change of scenery" type deals.

Both teams are underachieving so it's the type of deal teams who struggle might make to see if they can retool on the fly.

What does everyone think?
 
#3
I don’t think Lavine plays winning basketball but I do like Markkanen a lot still. I’d do Bagley and our pick for Markkanen and there pick which would be trading up for us.
I’d then use the pick and Buddy to get Myles Turner
 
#4
Would do it, than send Barnes + 1st for a decent player and the Kings should be ok.
Yeah maybe break up Barnes contract. I happen to really like Deni Avidja. Hes not Luka but has a high ball iq and his floor is a solid player kind of like Chandler Parsons when he was good or Gordon Hayward. His ceiling is all star perhaps like Luka but not on the superstar level. I think he would be a great fit long term at the 3.
 
#5
I don’t think Lavine plays winning basketball but I do like Markkanen a lot still. I’d do Bagley and our pick for Markkanen and there pick which would be trading up for us.
I’d then use the pick and Buddy to get Myles Turner
I Like Myles Turner a lot but I also really like Holmes. Turner doesnt seem necessary if Markanen is the four. He would compliment Bagley though
 
#7
I would agree with the argument that Bagley hasn't proved worthy of the 2nd pick in the draft so far, but I can also argue that he hasn't proved unworthy of the 2nd pick either. Point being, we still don't know how good Bagley can be. I'm not willing to give up on him until I know. The last thing I want is to trade Bagley and then see him turn into an annual all star. With Markkanen and Turner, I have a good idea of what I'm getting, but I don't have a good idea of what I'm giving up in Bagley.

I'm not a big fan of trading Buddy for Lavine. I don't see any immediate improvement, and I'm not sure who win's that trade. I can point out advantages and flaws on both sides of that deal. I would love to acquire Markkanen depending on what I have to give up. Whatever trade the Kings get involved in, I want to see us as a clear winner in that deal. At least from our point of view. What I don't want is to just throw mud up against the wall hoping some of it will stick.
 
#9
There’s no question that Lavine can be a high volume scorer when he gets hot, but he strikes me as a “me first” kind of player. Overall, I don’t think a team as a whole really benefits much with him on it.
At the worst he can run with Fox, I think he's not a winning player as well but he's a better fit than the other not winning SG we got and it would actually bring some excitement even if the team keeps sucking (likely) which we actually badly need. Also Lavine eliminates the need for Bogi as well and we can move on and sign a cheaper alternative. If we make the deal Barnes 100% has to go as well

If the Kings are going to suck at least do it with the most exciting back court in the L.

Fox/Cojo
Lavine/?/Bazemore.
?/Bazemore
Markeneen/Bjeli
Holmes/Giles

Hopefully get a tough bulldog 3 (Crowder?) that can hit the odd 3, you can even have stretches for certain matchups with both Mark/Bjeli on the floor for Fox/Lavine.
 
Last edited:
#11
I don't want to spend more asset on bigs. This league is all about forwards, especially who can handle the ball or can player multiple position. Unfortunately most of them are not getable.

I like the idea of Lavine though. It is hard to watch at clutch time, where the 3s are not going in, any guy not named Fox is shaky in handling the ball. Lavine can be a high level scorer. Jim Boylen didn't do him good.
 
#13
At the worst he can run with Fox, I think he's not a winning player as well but he's a better fit than the other not winning SG we got and it would actually bring some excitement even if the team keeps sucking (likely) which we actually badly need. Also Lavine eliminates the need for Bogi as well and we can move on and sign a cheaper alternative. If we make the deal Barnes 100% has to go as well

If the Kings are going to suck at least do it with the most exciting back court in the L.

Fox/Cojo
Lavine/?/Bazemore.
?/Bazemore
Markeneen/Bjeli
Holmes/Giles

Hopefully get a tough bulldog 3 (Crowder?) that can hit the odd 3, you can even have stretches for certain matchups with both Mark/Bjeli on the floor for Fox/Lavine.
I’ll admit, it’s an intriguing proposition. One problem is that Lavine previously made it apparent that he wasn’t too keen on the idea of playing here. Nevertheless, the Kings really need to explore various options to try to improve the team during the coming off-season, without overly constraining future flexibility/viability. All reasonable scenarios should be explored, and the FO needs to be open to trades and transactions that bring value. It’s hard to say what’s possible, but measured sacrifices (vis-a-vis giving up “undeveloped talent”) for a net gain may be a “risk” worth taking if the price is right. To achieve successful outcomes, however, management will need to be shrewd - a quality it hasn't really demonstrated at any time during the current regime.
 
#14
I’ll admit, it’s an intriguing proposition. One problem is that Lavine previously made it apparent that he wasn’t too keen on the idea of playing here. Nevertheless, the Kings really need to explore various options to try to improve the team during the coming off-season, without overly constraining future flexibility/viability. All reasonable scenarios should be explored, and the FO needs to be open to trades and transactions that bring value. It’s hard to say what’s possible, but measured sacrifices (vis-a-vis giving up “undeveloped talent”) for a net gain may be a “risk” worth taking if the price is right. To achieve successful outcomes, however, management will need to be shrewd - a quality it hasn't really demonstrated at any time during the current regime.
He signed for 80mil over 4 years here and thought he was coming until the Bulls matched it, I think this is the type of risk the Kings should take , I believe the upside of Lauri/Lavine is far greater than Buddy/Bagley.
 
#18
Why would Chicago be giving up a pick? If anything the Kings would have to sweeten the deal.
Well as it stands today, the thought of us giving up the 10 pick for their 8 pick.

First stated by Joshua earlier in the thread.

I later mentioned that would tempt me.

So it looks like neutral fans agree with you on sweetening the deal.
 
#20
Lavine doesn't play much defense, same as Markeneen. So I agree with some of our posters that bringing them in doesn't make us that much better.

Now the major unknown in that equation is one Marvin Bagley, as Bajaden said above, none of us has seen what this kid can really do. And that would be a major disservice to ship him out without assessing the goods. And it's also a bit unfair, with Mr. Youngman's note in mind, to classify him "soft" or injury-prone. With his athletic ability and gifted physicality, he could really turn into the modern big man who can stretch the floor, plays both inside and out (we already saw a glimpse of his ability inside, even with just his left hand), plays a mean pick and roll with Fox/Hield/Bog, and be a difference maker on the defensive end (which is the biggest question mark but you'd be careless to rule him out on that completely).

That's very different from some of the rookies/young players in the league who the critics think to have very high potential yet needs time. Bagley in this stage has already shown us he can be a 20/10 guy easily (barring injury). As I said, it wouldn't be wise to not give him another year at least to see his progression.
 
#21
Lavine doesn't play much defense, same as Markeneen. So I agree with some of our posters that bringing them in doesn't make us that much better.

Now the major unknown in that equation is one Marvin Bagley, as Bajaden said above, none of us has seen what this kid can really do. And that would be a major disservice to ship him out without assessing the goods. And it's also a bit unfair, with Mr. Youngman's note in mind, to classify him "soft" or injury-prone. With his athletic ability and gifted physicality, he could really turn into the modern big man who can stretch the floor, plays both inside and out (we already saw a glimpse of his ability inside, even with just his left hand), plays a mean pick and roll with Fox/Hield/Bog, and be a difference maker on the defensive end (which is the biggest question mark but you'd be careless to rule him out on that completely).

That's very different from some of the rookies/young players in the league who the critics think to have very high potential yet needs time. Bagley in this stage has already shown us he can be a 20/10 guy easily (barring injury). As I said, it wouldn't be wise to not give him another year at least to see his progression.
We have and it's not good enough to beat out Holmes or Bjelica or get you a win. I don't doubt he can put up 20/10 but at the expense of wins and every other thing to leads to winning basketball. LaVine/Lauri actually have better skillsets than both Buddy/Bagley and defense both are equally crap.

I heard the exact same thing about waiting with Robinson/WCS/Mclemore
 
#22
I think I would take a chance on the proposed trade. Reason being I’m concerned Bagley could easily lose value next year unless he’s 100%. Lavine I liked coming out of college, was hoping he might be a King.
Bring back Holmes, Bazemore and if we can another strong defensive wing and I like the shakeup.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#23
We have and it's not good enough to beat out Holmes or Bjelica or get you a win. I don't doubt he can put up 20/10 but at the expense of wins and every other thing to leads to winning basketball. LaVine/Lauri actually have better skillsets than both Buddy/Bagley and defense both are equally crap.

I heard the exact same thing about waiting with Robinson/WCS/Mclemore
This is just patently untrue.
 
#24
We have and it's not good enough to beat out Holmes or Bjelica or get you a win. I don't doubt he can put up 20/10 but at the expense of wins and every other thing to leads to winning basketball. LaVine/Lauri actually have better skillsets than both Buddy/Bagley and defense both are equally crap.

I heard the exact same thing about waiting with Robinson/WCS/Mclemore
It is amazing how we trained people to be so impatient and looking for instant gratification. The "at the expense of wins" is the same thing every rookie goes through in their first couple of years, at least. The other 2 rookies drafted next to Bagley are simply being put in situations where their head coaches plan the whole scheme FOR THEM AND AROUND THEM, whereas Bagley has to learn the gameplan (which doesn't help that he has 2 head coaches in his first 2 years of pro, but I digress). And still, their efficiencies aren't that great.

But I can see how easy they pass the eye test.

I think I would take a chance on the proposed trade. Reason being I’m concerned Bagley could easily lose value next year unless he’s 100%. Lavine I liked coming out of college, was hoping he might be a King.
Bring back Holmes, Bazemore and if we can another strong defensive wing and I like the shakeup.
I don't even know where to begin with this. I think the team's ongoing decade of failure really tortured so many of us to think in such a defeatist mentality. Especially if you look at what we gave up for him (not trying to turn it into another draft debate), we'd really going to be looked at as the KANGZ if we simply give up our 2nd overall pick before his rookie contract runs out, before he even played a season worth of games (Unless he is proven to be injury-prone which we don't have any data to back that). If we are going to gamble on taking him, at least let him prove to us that he's a failure.


Don't blame the organization's incompetence on the talented players we got.
 
#25
It is amazing how we trained people to be so impatient and looking for instant gratification. The "at the expense of wins" is the same thing every rookie goes through in their first couple of years, at least. The other 2 rookies drafted next to Bagley are simply being put in situations where their head coaches plan the whole scheme FOR THEM AND AROUND THEM, whereas Bagley has to learn the gameplan (which doesn't help that he has 2 head coaches in his first 2 years of pro, but I digress). And still, their efficiencies aren't that great.

But I can see how easy they pass the eye test.



I don't even know where to begin with this. I think the team's ongoing decade of failure really tortured so many of us to think in such a defeatist mentality. Especially if you look at what we gave up for him (not trying to turn it into another draft debate), we'd really going to be looked at as the KANGZ if we simply give up our 2nd overall pick before his rookie contract runs out, before he even played a season worth of games (Unless he is proven to be injury-prone which we don't have any data to back that). If we are going to gamble on taking him, at least let him prove to us that he's a failure.


Don't blame the organization's incompetence on the talented players we got.
For me the years of losing have shown what works and what does not and the Kings have had the whole scheme built around Bagley, we throw the ball to him (force feed) where he tunnel visions non-stop one on one with a limited skill-set, the other two picks (Luka/JJJ) have skill sets that actually help a team win as their current W-L indicates. Last year the Kings were primarily winning cause Fox/Buddy/BJelica/Shump not Bagley.
 
#26
For me the years of losing have shown what works and what does not and the Kings have had the whole scheme built around Bagley, we throw the ball to him (force feed) where he tunnel visions non-stop one on one with a limited skill-set, the other two picks (Luka/JJJ) have skill sets that actually help a team win as their current W-L indicates. Last year the Kings were primarily winning cause Fox/Buddy/BJelica/Shump not Bagley.
Just because they throw him the ball down low, doesn't mean the whole gameplan is built around him. If you need a reference, look at how the whole offense is running through Doncic or Young.
 
#27
Just because they throw him the ball down low, doesn't mean the whole gameplan is built around him. If you need a reference, look at how the whole offense is running through Doncic or Young.
Doncic and Young are capable of doing that, the most you can gameplan for with Bagley is to let him tunnel one on one cause he knows nothing else other than open dunks.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
#28
Doncic and Young are capable of doing that, the most you can gameplan for with Bagley is to let him tunnel one on one cause he knows nothing else other than open dunks.
For his NBA career, 12.4% of Bagley's shot attempts have been dunks. So apparently, 87.6% of what he "knows" is something else other than open dunks.

That said, it's kind of nice to have a player who is effective at dunking, as it's a pretty damn high efficiency shot.
 
#29
I'm done quoting each little part, what baffles me are all the "facts" being thrown out there for, once again, someone who hasn't played a full season worth of games.

It'd almost feel justified if all you guys' negative points on Bagley are his health issue, which is also largely unproven.