N
Former Kings coach Jerry Reynolds discusses Sacramento potentially trading for Chicago Bulls star Zach LaVine.
Continue reading...
Why Reynolds believes Kings trading for LaVine makes sense
Former Kings coach Jerry Reynolds discusses Sacramento potentially trading for Chicago Bulls star Zach LaVine.
Continue reading...
Nope. He even said that he wouldn't include real value. If the Kings were able to turn Huerter/Barnes into LaVine, and he came back at even 65% of his all star self this is one of those potential franchise turning moves. If it doesn't work? Well, might still be better than 46-48 wins and probably not worse.
I’m not opposed to it. Especially if the Kings end up losing Monk. Less interested if Monk returns.
Kings need another scorer that can create his own shot and have big scoring games though. It can be Keegan but it might not be..and most guys don’t really hit their full stride until the second contracts anyway.
Somebody you can expect it from every night. Not a revolving door of maybe Barnes, maybe Keegan, maybe Huerter, or just as likely nobody else at all.
Lavine can be that guy without the Kings having to move anybody they want long term or draft picks. It may even come with sweeteners from Chicago.
But I’m feeling desperate for a splash. At the mid point I would’ve said no way to LaVine since I fear he may be on the downswing, he’s almost 30 and he’s always been injury prone…but the Kings needs are quite glaring and the avenues to address them without touching our core is limited.
Kings need another scorer that can create his own shot and have big scoring games though. It can be Keegan but it might not be..and most guys don’t really hit their full stride until the second contracts anyway.
Somebody you can expect it from every night. Not a revolving door of maybe Barnes, maybe Keegan, maybe Huerter, or just as likely nobody else at all.
Lavine can be that guy without the Kings having to move anybody they want long term or draft picks. It may even come with sweeteners from Chicago.
But I’m feeling desperate for a splash. At the mid point I would’ve said no way to LaVine since I fear he may be on the downswing, he’s almost 30 and he’s always been injury prone…but the Kings needs are quite glaring and the avenues to address them without touching our core is limited.
Trading for Zach LaVine would ruin this team. He has three years left on his contract for $43 million, $46 million, and $49 respectively and he's made every team he's been on worse defensively. I can squint and understand why some people might want Jerami Grant but even if we could get him for free, adding Zach LaVine to this team would be a Jorden Poole level of self-sabotage.
This is Zach in an off year, Jordan Poole never looked like this in his best year. Zach has stood right next to Fox in terms of individual offensive creation stats. Jordan Poole is in the back half somewhere in his best year. If you can get this for free as a fallback and it works? Score. Monte is teetering ever so close to why not at this point. It's a gamble, but the payoff gets no bigger in terms of talent with the players left on the market right now.
Yeah but the issue here is LaVine would be taking Ellis' spot in the starting lineup which wipes out most of the progress we saw on defense this year. We need to see a small bump in offense and a big bump in defense from this season to elevate this team into a playoff threat. LaVine would help with the first part but he's such a poor defender that the combination of cutting Ellis' role/minutes and playing LaVine starters minutes instead is likely (I think) to put us right back near the bottom of the league in the team defense rankings. At that point the small bump in offense won't even matter.
LaVine isn't anything like Jordan Poole as a player but adding a player who makes your team worse and then paying him on average $45 million a year for the next 3 years is a mistake on par with trying to make Jordan Poole the centrepiece of your team.
LaVine isn't anything like Jordan Poole as a player but adding a player who makes your team worse and then paying him on average $45 million a year for the next 3 years is a mistake on par with trying to make Jordan Poole the centrepiece of your team.
Lavine is a walking bucket…tremendous offensive talent. But that salary paired with his injury history is potentially a killer. It’s why I’ve said I would do a deal with Chicago only if they add an asset(s) to take him. It’s a bad contract, they have to pony up something in the deal so we can hedge any injury. If not, I wouldn’t do the deal.
Lavine is the one star type player we could obtain without giving up too much.
Lavine is the one star type player we could obtain without giving up too much.
I still feel like his best landing spot is with the Nets. Straight swap for Ben. It’s a risk for them but I don’t think they can bank on being a free agent destination after the last debacle. They need to start winning again and establish an identity like New York did before that happens.
A lineup of:
Mystery Point Guard
Lavine
Bridges
DFS
Claxton
that has some potential if you ask me. They could move Cam Johnson and a bunch of picks to Cleveland for Garland if Donovan is re-signed. That could turn them around pretty quick.
A lineup of:
Mystery Point Guard
Lavine
Bridges
DFS
Claxton
that has some potential if you ask me. They could move Cam Johnson and a bunch of picks to Cleveland for Garland if Donovan is re-signed. That could turn them around pretty quick.
If the Bulls are being impossible it is what it is and they will either suffer, or make out better for it. They could very well keep LaVine and have it pay off. He's a legit All Star talent at his peak. If he doesn't return to form... whoops. They have 2 years of stalemate. This is probably why the NBA did away with those 7 year deals haha.
As with other trades, it all depends on the asking price. His talent is not in dispute. His injury history is concerning and there's no way I'd pay top dollar. I kind of view him and Porzingis in the same vein - both very talented and impactful when healthy, but both unable to stay on the floor for long periods of time. Is adding an inconsistently available player to a team marred by its inconsistency the way to go? The only way I could cross that bridge is if the price to get him is low.