What Deal Would You Make for Otto Porter?

What deal(s) would you make in exchange for Otto Porter at the trade deadline?

  • Expirings

  • Expirings & Cauley-Stein

  • Expirings & Labissiere

  • Expirings & Jackson

  • Expirings, Cauley-Stein, & Labissiere

  • Expirings, Cauley-Stein, & Jackson

  • Expirings, Labissiere, & Jackson

  • Expirings, Cauley-Stein, Labissiere, & Jackson

  • Other

  • None


Results are only viewable after voting.
#1
What deal(s) would you make in exchange for Otto Porter at the trade deadline? (Choose all that apply)

Contract
2018-19: $26,011,913
2019-20: $27,250,576
2020-21: $28,489,239 (Player Option)

Physical Measurements
Height w/o Shoes: 6'7.5"
Height w/ Shoes: 6'8.5"
Wingspan: 7'1.5"
Standing Reach: 8'9.5"
Hand Length: 8.75"
Hand Width: 9.25"
Weight: 197.6 lbs
Body Fat: 6.7%

Athletic Measurements
Three-Quarter Time: 3.4 sec
Lane Agility Time: 11.25 sec
Standing Vertical: 27 in
Max Vertical: 36 in

Per36 Min Stats
1548660222980.png

Impact Stats
1548660269523.png
 
Last edited:
#2
The problem with trading WCS is that we realistically aren't making a playoff run with KK/Bags/Giles as our bigs. I am by no means a Willie fan but I think that's the honest reality for this season. If that's the case is there a real need to go after Porter now? What's the solution to replacing WCS in a deal for Porter?
 
#3
The problem with trading WCS is that we realistically aren't making a playoff run with KK/Bags/Giles as our bigs. I am by no means a Willie fan but I think that's the honest reality for this season. If that's the case is there a real need to go after Porter now? What's the solution to replacing WCS in a deal for Porter?
Can you provide more reasoning for the sentence I bolded? Why does sending out Cauley-Stein without a C coming back result in us not realistically making a playoff run?
 
#4
Why would someone want to trade an asset with expirings for Porter but not expirings for Porter?

For instance...
  • @mac would trade expirings & Cauley-Stein for Porter but wouldn't just trade expirings for Porter
  • @Mad D would trade expirings & Labissiere for Porter but wouldn't just trade expirings for Porter
  • @Bosnian Diehard would trade expirings, Cauley-Stein, & Labissiere but wouldn't just trade expirings for Porter

That seems extremely odd. Either "Expirings" or "None" should have the most votes. I don't think people are voting correctly...
 
#5
I think anyone not named Fox, Hield, Bogdan, Giles, Bagley, or WCS would be fair game in a trade for Porter.

I wouldn't trade any 1st rounders, but I would include some 2nd round picks, if needed.

The Kings need a full sized 3 and D small forward to really take the next step to becoming a legit playoff caliber team.
 
#6
Why would someone want to trade an asset with expirings for Porter but not expirings for Porter?

For instance...
  • @mac would trade expirings & Cauley-Stein for Porter but wouldn't just trade expirings for Porter
  • @Mad D would trade expirings & Labissiere for Porter but wouldn't just trade expirings for Porter
  • @Bosnian Diehard would trade expirings, Cauley-Stein, & Labissiere but wouldn't just trade expirings for Porter

That seems extremely odd. Either "Expirings" or "None" should have the most votes. I don't think people are voting correctly...
Well yes probably I did not vote "correctly", but I was thinking more along the lines of what would I be willing to give up that could possibly be accepted.
 
#7
Can you provide more reasoning for the sentence I bolded? Why does sending out Cauley-Stein without a C coming back result in us not realistically making a playoff run?
Because I don't think some rotation of Giles/Bagley/KK/Bjelica/JJ at the 4 and 5 is good enough for us to make the playoffs? None of those guys are legit or reliable starters at the C position, and I don't think an Otto Porter gives us enough of a bump to make up for what would be a losing front court at the 4 and 5 almost every game
 
#8
I understand the opinion. I guess I was just looking for the explanation on your side that allowed you to arrive at that conclusion.

I don't think some rotation of Giles/Bagley/KK/Bjelica/JJ at the 4 and 5 is good enough for us to make the playoffs
Why?

None of those guys are legit or reliable starters at the C position
What’s considered legit and reliable? And must a team have a legit and reliable C to make the playoffs?

I don't think an Otto Porter gives us enough of a bump to make up for what would be a losing front court at the 4 and 5 almost every game
Again, why?


I’m not trying to come across as a jerk. I’m just trying to understand what’s behind your opinion.
 
#10
I understand the opinion. I guess I was just looking for the explanation on your side that allowed you to arrive at that conclusion.

Why?

What’s considered legit and reliable? And must a team have a legit and reliable C to make the playoffs?

Again, why?


I’m not trying to come across as a jerk. I’m just trying to understand what’s behind your opinion.
I'm not sure what you're looking for. Stats? Sorry, not everyone has time for that.

The team clearly has a problem with interior defense, physicality and rebounding, and isn't great at half court offensive execution either. None of our bigs addresses those weaknesses without compromising even more in another area at a level that I think is required for us to make the playoffs, considering we actually haven't been very good for a month now.

Does a team have to have a reliable C? I would say so, but it of course depends on your other players. The correct question is are the rest of the Kings good enough that we don't need a decent pair of Cs, to which my answer is no. We are getting killed on the boards, Fox isn't playing consistently well, and as currently constructed teams are just sagging off our bigs and daring them to shoot off of pnrs. Doesn't sound like a recipe for playoffs to me.
 
#11
I would give up WCS and basically any of those guys listed on the poll. First of all, WCS is most likely gone after this season so it would be nice to get some value in a trade with him. Porter is on a big contract and a little overpaid perhaps but to me the question is: can we do better than Porter with our cap space in the free agency? I would assume we cant. None of the superstars are coming here anyway so we would either have to overpay Middleton who is older than Porter or try to find some under the radar wings for cheap.

Porter also gives you size, shooting and defense at the 3. Those thing are very rare, valuable and expensive. You could also play him some at the 4 lineups like Fox, Hield, Bogdan, Porter, Bagley should be very effective at least offensively.
 
#13
Any combination of

Zbo
KK
Skal
Ben Mac
Yogi
Mason
JJ
WCS

and maybe

Shump

That makes salaries work along with 2nd round picks.

Bottom line, we need a player exactly like Porter and we will not be able to sign a player like Porter in the summer. Get it done.
 
#14
Sacramento Out : Zbo to NY for Enes, KK,Shump,WCS, 2nd rd to WA for Otto

Fox,Yogi,Mason
Buddy,Bogi,Ben
Otto,Jackson
Belicia,Giles,Skal
Bagley, Enes

We get our SF for our core, Enes to shore up C for this year
We still have Mason,Ben, Enes to give cap space in summer
for Backup C and Backup PG

Bottom line Im ok giving up WCS for Porter, as long as we get Enes (or anybody to fill in at C for Willie)
 
#15
Why would someone want to trade an asset with expirings for Porter but not expirings for Porter?

For instance...
  • @mac would trade expirings & Cauley-Stein for Porter but wouldn't just trade expirings for Porter
  • @Mad D would trade expirings & Labissiere for Porter but wouldn't just trade expirings for Porter
  • @Bosnian Diehard would trade expirings, Cauley-Stein, & Labissiere but wouldn't just trade expirings for Porter

That seems extremely odd. Either "Expirings" or "None" should have the most votes. I don't think people are voting correctly...
I assumed the question meant what would be the most we’d give up in a trade for Porter?

Otherwise I’d obviously love to have Porter for expirings and filler, but it’s extremely unlikely. Thus, the most I would give Washington is WCS/Skal/expirings.
 
#16
I would give up Jackson+salary dump. I think NBA teams still see Jackson as someone who could be a high level role player in the league and he's only 23. For Washington, they at least get a semi-young prospect back who's under contract for 2 more years and could end up to be next the Porter Jr.

I wouldn't give up WCS though. I've been a very vocal defender of him on this forum, and I think we'd still need to find a starting C if we trade WCS. Look, he's not a top 10 C in the league. He's not the best rebounder in the league. He's not the best shot blocker in the league. But he's a solid starting C and those can be hard to find.
 
#17
I would give up expiring contracts, second round picks, maybe a mid level starter (WCS) or young backup player (JJ) and maybe take back mahimi (sp??). Would really rather not give up WCS or JJ. Both have value.

But I guess point of posting is to temper expectations (for self as much as anyone). Despite logic against them (outlined by others in SF thread), wiz don't have to trade Porter. If they do decide to trade they don't have to with us. Have woken up a few times post trade deadline like 'oh...'. Retrospectively these have been OK deals in the end...
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#18
Can you provide more reasoning for the sentence I bolded? Why does sending out Cauley-Stein without a C coming back result in us not realistically making a playoff run?
I'll answer that. Because Giles isn't even close to being ready to play the center position and neither is Bagley when the match up is any of the bigger centers in the league. I watched Gasol go through Giles like he wasn't even there. I love Bagley, but right now he isn't strong enough to match up. Plus I see Bag's as more of a PF than I do a center. Right now, Willie is the best center on the team, and the only guy that can even come close to guarding the Adams, Gasol's, AD's, Cousins, Towns, etc. of the world.
 
#19
I'll answer that. Because Giles isn't even close to being ready to play the center position and neither is Bagley when the match up is any of the bigger centers in the league. I watched Gasol go through Giles like he wasn't even there. I love Bagley, but right now he isn't strong enough to match up. Plus I see Bag's as more of a PF than I do a center. Right now, Willie is the best center on the team, and the only guy that can even come close to guarding the Adams, Gasol's, AD's, Cousins, Towns, etc. of the world.
Coach's show yesterday he said the Clippers were telling him his players need to hit the weight room. He responded their 19 and 20 years old not 10 year vets.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#20
I'll answer that. Because Giles isn't even close to being ready to play the center position and neither is Bagley when the match up is any of the bigger centers in the league. I watched Gasol go through Giles like he wasn't even there. I love Bagley, but right now he isn't strong enough to match up. Plus I see Bag's as more of a PF than I do a center. Right now, Willie is the best center on the team, and the only guy that can even come close to guarding the Adams, Gasol's, AD's, Cousins, Towns, etc. of the world.
Totally agree about Giles. I'll go one step further: He will never be a starting center for the Kings. He obviously doesn't have the build for it. He could spend the next seven years getting stronger and he's still not a center. He's a 4 or a 3 or a hybrid of the two.

IMO, Bagley can guard AD and Towns and the Greek Freak better than WCS right now, and he's no worse at guarding those other physical guys than WCS. Of course, as we've seen, that's not saying much. Moreover, Bagley can put more offensive pressure on those guys to guard him. WCS can't. WCS has regressed on offense. He's not getting better. He's gotten worse on offense. He used to be able to hit a mid range shot. Now it's the luck of the draw. He can't consistently post up. He can't shoot a mid range shot. He's a one-trick alley-oop pony. It's not even arguable that Bagley is better than WCS on offense. It's indisputable. So if you have a draw or near-draw on the defensive end and undisputed superiority on the offensive end, who are you going to pick?

The only way I see WCS being an asset for the Kings going forward is as a role-player coming off the bench. And that means he gets paid accordingly. Then the Kings can add another center who is a bruiser to compliment the non-bruising non physical but speedy WCS. Then you could have the bruiser guard the Adams' and Harrell's of the NBA and WCS could guard the not so physical ADs and Towns when need be. It's not the perfect solution, that's for sure, but it would be better than what we see now, which is tantamount to watching a big truck crash into a "piece of car" at Cal Expo . The other alternative is to just get a center who has some physicallity to his game, but who is not going to compete with WCS in finishing on the break; get someone who starts the break, not finish the break.

I continue to believe that it's more likely WCS will not be with this team at the beginning of next season than with it.
 
#21
I'd rather them not move Jackson. Porter is better with shots but he's an albatross of a contract on a team where he's wheel number 3 at best. Which he would be on the Kings.
 
#22
Totally agree about Giles. I'll go one step further: He will never be a starting center for the Kings. He obviously doesn't have the build for it. He could spend the next seven years getting stronger and he's still not a center. He's a 4 or a 3 or a hybrid of the two.

IMO, Bagley can guard AD and Towns and the Greek Freak better than WCS right now, and he's no worse at guarding those other physical guys than WCS. Of course, as we've seen, that's not saying much. Moreover, Bagley can put more offensive pressure on those guys to guard him. WCS can't. WCS has regressed on offense. He's not getting better. He's gotten worse on offense. He used to be able to hit a mid range shot. Now it's the luck of the draw. He can't consistently post up. He can't shoot a mid range shot. He's a one-trick alley-oop pony. It's not even arguable that Bagley is better than WCS on offense. It's indisputable. So if you have a draw or near-draw on the defensive end and undisputed superiority on the offensive end, who are you going to pick?

The only way I see WCS being an asset for the Kings going forward is as a role-player coming off the bench. And that means he gets paid accordingly. Then the Kings can add another center who is a bruiser to compliment the non-bruising non physical but speedy WCS. Then you could have the bruiser guard the Adams' and Harrell's of the NBA and WCS could guard the not so physical ADs and Towns when need be. It's not the perfect solution, that's for sure, but it would be better than what we see now, which is tantamount to watching a big truck crash into a "piece of car" at Cal Expo . The other alternative is to just get a center who has some physicallity to his game, but who is not going to compete with WCS in finishing on the break; get someone who starts the break, not finish the break.

I continue to believe that it's more likely WCS will not be with this team at the beginning of next season than with it.
This is why Kanter makes some sense to me
 
#23
Bagley is literally dead last in PF defensive ranking in the league. This concerns me. I want to believe he can guard those guys in the future, but right now he apparently can't guard anyone.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#24
I understand the opinion. I guess I was just looking for the explanation on your side that allowed you to arrive at that conclusion.

Why?

What’s considered legit and reliable? And must a team have a legit and reliable C to make the playoffs?

Again, why?


I’m not trying to come across as a jerk. I’m just trying to understand what’s behind your opinion.
I think you're assuming that more people hold a negative view of Cauley-Stein than is actually true. I know you don't agree, but I think there is a value to WCS that is not fully appreciated by some around here. He has made strides in improving his game. Also recall that he is still learning how to be a basketball player instead of a wide receiver. That's a significant mindset change that hasn't IMHO been fully acknowledged. WCS is far from perfect but he does fill a need that would become a glaring hole in his absence. Giles is nowhere near ready to step into a full-time C position and might not be for a couple of years.

I think your mistake is in assuming you have to agree with someone else's assessment of WCS instead of simply accepting that their assessment is just as valid in their mind as yours is in yours. (Something with which I also have trouble at times. :p )
 
#27
I think you're assuming that more people hold a negative view of Cauley-Stein than is actually true. I know you don't agree, but I think there is a value to WCS that is not fully appreciated by some around here. He has made strides in improving his game. Also recall that he is still learning how to be a basketball player instead of a wide receiver. That's a significant mindset change that hasn't IMHO been fully acknowledged. WCS is far from perfect but he does fill a need that would become a glaring hole in his absence. Giles is nowhere near ready to step into a full-time C position and might not be for a couple of years.

I think your mistake is in assuming you have to agree with someone else's assessment of WCS instead of simply accepting that their assessment is just as valid in their mind as yours is in yours. (Something with which I also have trouble at times. :p )
I'm not assuming anything. Hence the reason I asked "why"? The only assumption here is you assuming that I'm assuming ;)

For instance, why are you assuming that I think Giles steps into the role of C? I'm playing Koufos, Bagley, & Bjelica at C before I'm playing Giles at C.

Swapping Porter for Cauley-Stein makes this team better not worse. However, there is the thought that we need to have a 7'0" 240lbs+ C to be successful. To that, I ask why?

  • We have a big who is stronger than Cauley-Stein (Koufos)
  • We have a big who is a better rebounder than Cauley-Stein (Koufos)
  • We have a big who is more athletic than Cauley-Stein (Bagley)
  • We have two bigs who are better shooters than Cauley-Stein (Bjelica & Bagley)
  • We have a big who is a better passer than Cauley-Stein (Bjelica - i think this is debatable however)
  • We have two bigs who are more efficient scorers than Cauley-Stein (Bagley & Bjelica)
  • We have three bigs who protect the rim better than Cauley-Stein (Bagley, Koufos, & Bjelica)

Now Cauley-Stein does have somewhat of an all-around game. However, I think we have enough variety across Koufos, Bagley, & Bjelica to adequately cover the C spot while we get a HUGE upgrade at SF.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#28
I do not see Koufos as being a part of this team going forward. Without him, the need for WCS is IMHO much more definitive.
 
#29
I do not see Koufos as being a part of this team going forward. Without him, the need for WCS is IMHO much more definitive.
There is a difference between going forward and this year.

The argument is not do we see Koufos on this team going forward. The argument is if we trade Cauley-Stein, does it crush our chances at a playoff run this year.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#30
There is a difference between going forward and this year.

The argument is not do we see Koufos on this team going forward. The argument is if we trade Cauley-Stein, does it crush our chances at a playoff run this year.
No, that's your interpretation of my perception of the argument. My use of "going forward" didn't mean just after this year. I strongly suspect if a good deal comes along, Koufos just might go to a team that needs to shore up their big man position for a deep run in the playoffs. Thus, if we trade Koufos, your argument becomes kind of irrelevant since I think we both agree that we couldn't lose both WCS and KK and expect to be playing after mid-April.