Would you trade #6 for Rubio or Kidd Gilchrist?

Would you trade the #6 for Rubio or Kidd Gilchrist?

  • Yes for either

    Votes: 5 7.7%
  • Yes for Rubio, not for Kidd Gilchrist

    Votes: 3 4.6%
  • Yes for Kidd Gilchrist, not for Rubio

    Votes: 5 7.7%
  • No to either

    Votes: 34 52.3%
  • Only if Cauley-Stein is off the board

    Votes: 18 27.7%

  • Total voters
    65
But this pick isn't going to turn around our roster. It was always going to be one tool of a few needed to turn this thing around.

You are kinda making my argument for me.

You want to turn around the defensive culture, you have to quit talking about it and start acquiring top defenders. You want to turn around the defensive culture QUICKLY, you need to start acquiring top defenders who have already proven they can be top defenders at the NBA level and fill out your rotation with them.

If this pick is just one tool among many to turn this thing, then why treat it like some gambling roll of the dice to go get a star which we already have? Why not treat it like one more asset to build a strong steady collection of defenders? Isn't that the whole deal with the proposed WCS pick?
 
You are kinda making my argument for me.

You want to turn around the defensive culture, you have to quit talking about it and start acquiring top defenders. You want to turn around the defensive culture QUICKLY, you need to start acquiring top defenders who have already proven they can be top defenders at the NBA level and fill out your rotation with them.

If this pick is just one tool among many to turn this thing, then why treat it like some gambling roll of the dice to go get a star which we already have? Why not treat it like one more asset to build a strong steady collection of defenders? Isn't that the whole deal with the proposed WCS pick?

Just to be clear, would you be content rolling into next year with Rubio as our only real change (minus #6, collison and/or jt)?

Because acquiring a defensive piece at that cost means we are pretty much out of other chips to make significant changes.

You maybe still have a useful backup pg, the same caliber sg, sf, pf and backup c. You still have defensive issues throughout the roster and now you've added a shooting issue.
 
Just to be clear, would you be content rolling into next year with Rubio as our only real change (minus #6, collison and/or jt)?

Because acquiring a defensive piece at that cost means we are pretty much out of other chips to make significant changes.

You maybe still have a useful backup pg, the same caliber sg, sf, pf and backup c. You still have defensive issues throughout the roster and now you've added a shooting issue.
Oh no, that was Funky's thing. I don't buy and have never proposed having Collison in that deal. Not even sure what Minny would want with him if they truly were cashing out with this whole slew of kids on rookie deals. Would have to be the Carl, JT and the pick for me. Since this was Ford's rumor not mine, let me flesh out the theory and say that they would take our two vet bigs to a) complete the frontcourt and give the kids guidance (right now they only have Pek and Garnett may come back, and they likely want to move Pek), and get out from under their biggest longterm contract. JT and Carl are "flexible pieces" contracts with only 2 years remaining. Rubio is 4 years.
 
Oh no, that was Funky's thing. I don't buy and have never proposed having Collison in that deal. Not even sure what Minny would want with him if they truly were cashing out with this whole slew of kids on rookie deals. Would have to be the Carl, JT and the pick for me. Since this was Ford's rumor not mine, let me flesh out the theory and say that they would take our two vet bigs to a) complete the frontcourt and give the kids guidance (right now they only have Pek and Garnett may come back, and they likely want to move Pek), and get out from under their biggest longterm contract. JT and Carl are "flexible pieces" contracts with only 2 years remaining. Rubio is 4 years.

Fair enough. Then take it all the way. How would you upgrade the other needs we have? We're out of pf's, have no backup 3 or 5 and would still have the kids at 2.

But that way would keep the cap space so how do we spend the 7-9m to fill those needs. Just curious what you would do.
 
Oh no, that was Funky's thing.

Just to be clear absolutely nothing about trading for Rubio should be considered my "thing". ;)

But it is true the Kings would have to send back salary. JT and Carl works but that assumes Minny would take back that package and give up Rubio essentially just for the 6th pick. They already have Dieng playing the same role as JT (that's a young defensive role player I'd love on the Kings BTW) and Landry's injuries & contract make him unattractive right now.

I'm not sure I'd trade Collison straight up for Rubio honestly. I think people are forgetting how well hit fit in the Kings starting lineup to start the season and his contract is an absolute bargain.
 
Rubio hasn't been any good offensively without Love and his shooting (and even that was only .491TS% on 10 shots - in POs he'll be schemed against and forced to score), also had a lot of injuries already (plus pro level work load since he was 15, so he already has a lot of mileage in him despite only being 25 next season).

MKG has injury problems as well, which is pretty understandable given how much he attacks the rim. His shot is non-existent, so when placing him next to Cousins and Rudy you better have Love at PF.

Thing is WCS is 7' MKG defensively, so I would definitely take him at #6 instead of the trade.
 
Nope, the Kings need defensive studs that can shoot on the wing and at PG. WCS is not a great shooter but he is a Big and Bigs can be forgiven for poor shooting if they play good defense and rebound.
 
First, I prefer Rubio over Rondo. I don't think Rubio will command $12 mil+. He has too many deficiencies in his game. However, he is a superb playmaker. He can get the ball to anyone and I would think DMC would like that. That would also significantly improve other Kings game, like Gay, McLemore, Casspi and (hopefully!) WCS. I just don't see that trade going through at a price that would make it worth for the Kings. So this is purely academic.
 
First, I prefer Rubio over Rondo. I don't think Rubio will command $12 mil+. He has too many deficiencies in his game. However, he is a superb playmaker. He can get the ball to anyone and I would think DMC would like that. That would also significantly improve other Kings game, like Gay, McLemore, Casspi and (hopefully!) WCS. I just don't see that trade going through at a price that would make it worth for the Kings. So this is purely academic.

Rubio signed 4-year extension, that starts at $12.7 million with $0.7 million raises.
 
My bad.. I was thinking of the right guy but typed in the wrong initials.

I thought that was a possibility. But you did say you didn't think he'd hurt our offense, and that made me figure that you actually were thinking MCW, because I have trouble seeing MKG not hurting an offense - especially ours - right now. We can handle somebody like WCS because we can score at the other four positions, but MKG would essentially be taking minutes from either Gay or Ben/Nik and that's a big step down offensively any way I look at it.
 
I think a possibility would be the Celtics offering Marcus smart for the #6 WCS and we make them take Landry's contract.

Would you do it?
 
Last edited:
I would prefer to draft WCS simply because true defensive anchors that can protect the rim and defend the pick and roll and guard multiple positions are very hard to come by!

If he is off the board, I would be open to the Rubio idea but unlikely on MKD. With either of those, PF would have to be a shooter.
 
Rubio signed 4-year extension, that starts at $12.7 million with $0.7 million raises.

Uuups! That slipped my screen completely. Sorry about that! Anyway, Minny is getting Towns in the draft and they will be all set concerning big men. In fact, packed with them. Therefore, I don't see what the Kings could offer for Rubio that would interest them (Gay?). Minny's primary interest must be getting rid of the Pekovic deal.
 
I think a possibility would be the Celtics offering Marcus smart for the #6 WCS and we make them take Landry's contract.

Would you do it?
Kings don't need SG with below average shooting and bad efficiency, even if he's an excellent defender.
 
Fair enough. Then take it all the way. How would you upgrade the other needs we have? We're out of pf's, have no backup 3 or 5 and would still have the kids at 2.

But that way would keep the cap space so how do we spend the 7-9m to fill those needs. Just curious what you would do.

We are short an asset this summer anyway you look at it.

We'd have to count on picking up Omri, who wants to come back, and Reggie on a vet min for depth after we're done this summer. But I'm always assuming that. Miller too.

As for picking up a PG, whether it be a Rubio or a Lawson, a key part about retaining Collison is that he can then do what he was doing in Clipperland and serve as a dual backup PG and SG. And Rubio works better than Lawson for that theory, because he's got enough size that you can play he and Collison together without getting killed by opposing SGs.

So you then use that money up front I guess, Koufos let's say. Maybe have a bit left over for a lesser piece. You bring up Moreland or Sim. Plan on smallball minutes with Omri or Rudy at the 4. Can probably get a Drew Gooden type guy for professional level depth. I'd be looking to package Nik and/or Ray somewhere to get something more dependable. Somebody suggested trying to make it a big Rubio/KMart for #6/JT/Carl/Nik deal. That works financially, would be a huge score. But would eat into the free agent money. Maybe we could still get Koufos, but the frontcourt would be thin. Its eye of the needle grandiose.

In any case, end result of this, or most strategies this summer is going to be us coming up 1 hole short. I guess unless you actually did get in Kevin, in which case you would have done a nifty thing, but still be shy up front.

Rubio and Koufos with the salary strictures in place basically means you help your passing problems and your defensive problems. With Collison swinging over for backup SG minutes you slightly patch your SG, but not completely. But you don't fix your shooting or your PF mess (in fact if I understand the Koufos idea correctly they are planning on having Cuz play some PF alongside the big guy, which could work sometimes, but given Cuz's dominance at center I'd rather it not be half a game), so that gets put off for another year.

But let's not pretend like any of our options realistically are going to cover everything. I like WCS as a pick, but even if WCS is that rare rookie who steps right into the NBA ready to play major minutes and have defensive impact, you still have just cap room and some highly indifferent "assets" to try to find a SG, shooters, passers, and unless WCS puts on some weight, a backup center. Its hard to see how we patch it all. I'm just looking for bare minimum 2, hopefully 3, more solid pieces to join the core. We had 3 solid quality NBA guys last year. Get us to 5 and we improve, 6 and we can begin talking seriously.
 
To Brick's original idea, if we are going to be making a trade or a FA signing, it should be for a player that fits. We all talk about how you take the BPA in the draft and balance the roster using trades and FA. However, Brick's premise leaves me with an empty feeling inside, and it's because he's bringing up two players that don't fit with the core of our team.

Now having said that, would a trade for Rubio or Kidd-Gilchrist while sending out #6 make us better? I would say yes, barring a rookie we could have selected at #6 comes in and makes a big impact. But again, if we're going to trade this pick, I don't want to see it traded just for the sake of adding a veteran. We need to add the right veteran, and right now, Rubio & Kidd-Gilchrist are not those players.

If we were to do that trade, I see it as us taking a step forward initially but that step forward happens to be towards a dead end. What I mean by that is the team would likely improve this year, but we would limiting the potential greatness of our team.

I understand the dynamic of doing what we can to keep Cousins (as I post many ideas to give the big guy some help) and this isn't a post meant to pin the "trade the pick" vs. "don't trade the pick" arguments against one another. It's a post that suggests we should go after players that make sense with our core to ultimately maximize our roster's talent rather than just making an improvement for improvement's sake with little thought to the end product.
 
Aside from gambling for steals where did the myth that Rubio is a good defender come from? Opposition PG's have energy to burn against Ricky because none of them defend him, if we are trading for a PG go for Lawson, Lawson solves way more issues (legit 3rd option with playmaking) than Rubio, honestly Andre Miller does 90% of what Ricky does as a 40 year old and he will actually be healthy most likely.
 
Chicago might be looking to make changes with Hoiberg, and given his style of coaching in college Noah probably stays (low value currently, based on performance affected by injury, so Jo might become an effective player again, if he deals with injury successfully), so Taj might be on his way out. Kings must sell the rest of protection on owed pick, so it will be conveyed in 2016, then see, if anyone is willing to send a useful player for pick exchange in 2017, and offer top10 protected 2018 pick. Those 3 assets are better used now, whether Boogie stays or leaves, since perception is Kings will be 11th-13th team in the West again, and again, and again. And team with Karl will very likely out-perform such expectations, since those teams always did before.

P.S. Bulls are favorites to land Royce White.:D
 
There's a few problems with MKG: one, he can't shoot; two, he's offensively limited; and three, he plays the same position as Gay.

He would be a rotational player unless Gay moves to PF, which is something I am not convinced about being a good thing for this team. He'd be a good addition, but I wouldn't swap #6 for MKG. I think the only scenario I could be even half tempted is if we swapped picks with them, and traded Gay for the answer at PF (no idea who this could be?). In that scenario we'd have a defensive stopper at SF and the answer at PF. But I'd rather keep Gay and acquire that PF.

As for Rubio, he's a damn good player, but he's also injury prone. No way I'd invest in him. I'd rather take Lawson or use the pick to acquire an upgrade at PF since we have a capable PG in Collison.
 
Chicago might be looking to make changes with Hoiberg, and given his style of coaching in college Noah probably stays (low value currently, based on performance affected by injury, so Jo might become an effective player again, if he deals with injury successfully), so Taj might be on his way out. Kings must sell the rest of protection on owed pick, so it will be conveyed in 2016, then see, if anyone is willing to send a useful player for pick exchange in 2017, and offer top10 protected 2018 pick. Those 3 assets are better used now, whether Boogie stays or leaves, since perception is Kings will be 11th-13th team in the West again, and again, and again. And team with Karl will very likely out-perform such expectations, since those teams always did before.

P.S. Bulls are favorites to land Royce White.:D

Well I really hope he ends up in a Kings uniform next year (Gibson that is). I like Amir Johnson too, but his injury seems to have zapped a lot of his impact (or at least that is the feeling from Raptor fans). So with that in mind, I think Gibson is my #1 that is within the realm of realistic options.

I understand where you're coming from when you say sell the rest of the protection on that pick. Then it gives us the ability to swap the 2017 pick, but to be fair, I'm not really sure how much value we would get for a pick swap in 2017. taking that into account, I think it's unwise to completely remove the pick protection. I'm fine with making it top 3 as I really do not expect us to be close to the bottom at all. However, there's always that chance that you barely miss the playoffs and you still win the lottery. It's very unlikely to happen, but it would be a tragedy if it did happen and we left the pick completely unprotected, and since I don't think we could get really anything for 2017 pick swap, it doesn't make sense to take that risk with our 2016 pick.

I think we can make a deal with Chicago to not only shed Landry's contract but also grab Gibson in the process. This is what I'm thinking.

Bulls get: Robert Covington, Jason Thompson, & Ray McCallum
Sixers get: Carl Landry, Nik Stauskas, & Kings' 2016 1st (top 3 protected)
Kings get: Taj Gibson

PG - Rose/Hinrich/McCallum
SG - Butler/Snell/Moore
SF - Covington/McDermott
PF - Gasol/Mirotic/Bairstow
C - Noah/Thompson

PG - Russell (#3)/Wroten/Canaan
SG - Stauskas/Sampson
SF - Thompson/Grant
PF - Noel/Landry
C - Embiid/Aldemir

PG - Collison/Stockton
SG - McLemore
SF - Gay
PF - Gibson/Cauley-Stein (#6)/Moreland
C - Cousins

This also gives us $14.67 mil in cap space to use this offseason.
 
Well I really hope he ends up in a Kings uniform next year (Gibson that is). I like Amir Johnson too, but his injury seems to have zapped a lot of his impact (or at least that is the feeling from Raptor fans). So with that in mind, I think Gibson is my #1 that is within the realm of realistic options.

I understand where you're coming from when you say sell the rest of the protection on that pick. Then it gives us the ability to swap the 2017 pick, but to be fair, I'm not really sure how much value we would get for a pick swap in 2017. taking that into account, I think it's unwise to completely remove the pick protection. I'm fine with making it top 3 as I really do not expect us to be close to the bottom at all. However, there's always that chance that you barely miss the playoffs and you still win the lottery. It's very unlikely to happen, but it would be a tragedy if it did happen and we left the pick completely unprotected, and since I don't think we could get really anything for 2017 pick swap, it doesn't make sense to take that risk with our 2016 pick.

I think we can make a deal with Chicago to not only shed Landry's contract but also grab Gibson in the process. This is what I'm thinking.

Bulls get: Robert Covington, Jason Thompson, & Ray McCallum
Sixers get: Carl Landry, Nik Stauskas, & Kings' 2016 1st (top 3 protected)
Kings get: Taj Gibson

PG - Rose/Hinrich/McCallum
SG - Butler/Snell/Moore
SF - Covington/McDermott
PF - Gasol/Mirotic/Bairstow
C - Noah/Thompson

PG - Russell (#3)/Wroten/Canaan
SG - Stauskas/Sampson
SF - Thompson/Grant
PF - Noel/Landry
C - Embiid/Aldemir

PG - Collison/Stockton
SG - McLemore
SF - Gay
PF - Gibson/Cauley-Stein (#6)/Moreland
C - Cousins

This also gives us $14.67 mil in cap space to use this offseason.
1. If you read, what Bulls' fans write, or listen to some Bulls' podcasts, they wonder, whether Gibson is slowing down as well due to ankles. Most games Amir missed in a season was 10 and it was 5 years ago. Johnson missed total 15 games in last 4 seasons. Taj had 65 and 62 games seasons in the last 3 years.
2. Kings need to end the obligation in 2016 to free more assets. In the end if Chicago believes, that Kings' intent is to fight for PO till the end and get most wins possible, they might just look at recent history, where 9th-11th team from West ended up, and decide, that they will get the 2016 pick anyway, no need to waste assets. Those small percentages (and 11th worst team in the league has just 2.5% to move into top3) are what's enticing. And next year will be close to 2013 draft anyway.
3. Kings can absolutely get asset(-s) from a team like Houston, Chicago or Cleveland, who might be willing to sell their picks this year for a swap, since they will be good next season and need money in FA.
 
Last edited:
The Kings are bringing in Payne for individual workouts. Payne at 6 seems really high which makes me think that the Celtics and Kings may have had talks about a possible trade. As for assets the Celtics could possibly give up I would say picks, Bradley (Kings don't need him) KO or Sully. I think KO would be a nice fit next to Cousins and would be able to stretch the defense allowing Cousins more room down low.

The Celtics could possibly get Denver involved and swing Lawson to the Kings too.
 
Apparently Payne was promised to be picked in the late lottery (attended Pacers workout and then shut down team meetings). Kings got him to come in, only because their pick is higher than the promise. He wasn't going to participate next to other PGs, so that he could be easily compared.
Maybe this whole shutting down was just a play to force teams in the middle of the lottery to take a look on their terms.
 
I thought that was a possibility. But you did say you didn't think he'd hurt our offense, and that made me figure that you actually were thinking MCW, because I have trouble seeing MKG not hurting an offense - especially ours - right now. We can handle somebody like WCS because we can score at the other four positions, but MKG would essentially be taking minutes from either Gay or Ben/Nik and that's a big step down offensively any way I look at it.
My point was that we really have not gotten dependable offense from Ben and Nick. But yes in a raw facts kind of way MKG IS a step down from Ben on the offensive end, the difference is you don't run plays for him.
 
I would prefer to draft WCS simply because true defensive anchors that can protect the rim and defend the pick and roll and guard multiple positions are very hard to come by!

He doesn't have a huge frame (closer to Bosh than Jordan), has no offensive game, and didn't display enough raw talent and potential to be a likely lottery pick after two years of college (not a monster red-flag itself but worth considering.) It feels like we'd be using the 6th pick in the draft to take rookie Chris Anderson. That fills a need ... but if we are passing on a player that could be an All-Star in 3-4 years, I'm not sure that's prudent.
 
Ah, the Chris Andersen vs future all-star argument.

Show me Andersen doing something close to moves at 2:05, 2:10, 2:33, 2:53, 3:15 or 3:08 and I will agree, he is Chris Andersen:


Here's the thing: WCS ' combination of mobility, both linear and lateral, length and no step vertical is rivaled by maybe 5 guys in the entire NBA, maybe. And WCS can actually function as PF, while Andersen, Jordan or Chandler can't, so WCS having only Tyson's type of frame instead of Deandre's is absolutely fine.

Looking for young Deandre I came across this clip, where young 21 y.o. RoLo looks similar physically to WCS:


Thin 24-26 y.o. Tyson:


And here's 26 y.o. 220 pounds Andersen:


Thin 22y.o. dinosaur:


In released DX videos (maybe it's just tucked tank shirt of Towns) WCS actually seems to have wider base than KAT.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top