George Hill to the Cavaliers?

#61
A good way to look at this to visit Cavs fans forums and see what they think.

Interestingly, Cavs fans seem to like the idea of Shumpert+Frye+ Cle 2018 pick for Hill+Richardson.

I would totally jump on that deal. Shumpert has a player option for next year so he might be on the books but Frye is an expiring, so you are shedding that salary. So we would save 8 million and get a late first? Do it.
 

gunks

Hall of Famer
#62
WHY would we trade a kid we're just starting to get to know for another unknown quantity? At some point, you have to quit drooling over the grass on the other side of the fence or the next model of iPhone. Quit shopping for raw materials and start building.
Roster balance. Papa is going to be the odd bigman out either way if Harry is all that. Might as well try to get something for him. I reckon there's a few wings in the lower half of the lotto that would be way more valuable to us than a kid who's wasting away on the bench.

Moot point though. I was joking, there's no way Cleveland does that trade. They'd probably ask for Buddy or Bogs, and Vlade would hopefully hang up on them.
 
#63
To give us even a remote chance at the Brooklyn pick (and I mean very remote), we're probably talking:

George Hill
Bogdan Bogdanovic
Kosta Koufos

for

Tristan Thompson
JR Smith
Iman Shumpert
2018 BKN 1st

If a deal like that were to happen, we would probably buyout Smith as I would think we don't want him anywhere near our young guys, but then you have this core of young guys:

PG - Fox / Mason
SG - Hield / Richardson
SF - Jackson
PF - Labissiere / Giles
C - Cauley-Stein / Papagiannis

We could end up grabbing Doncic/Porter with our pick and a guy like Knox/Mil. Bridges/Mik. Bridges with the Brooklyn pick.
Anything involving Bogdan needs to be vetoed by the Kings. Immediately.
 
#64
A good way to look at this to visit Cavs fans forums and see what they think.

Interestingly, Cavs fans seem to like the idea of Shumpert+Frye+ Cle 2018 pick for Hill+Richardson.

I would totally jump on that deal. Shumpert has a player option for next year so he might be on the books but Frye is an expiring, so you are shedding that salary. So we would save 8 million and get a late first? Do it.
what about the 2020 pick instead? We have enough kids to worry about plus next year's lotto prize and Giles.
 
#65
what about the 2020 pick instead? We have enough kids to worry about plus next year's lotto prize and Giles.
The Cavs have already traded their 2019 pick with protections so they cant trade their 2020 pick. But I agree, Kings have a lot of young players already. But you have other options here as well, for example, you could try to package Cleveland's first (currently #24) with the secound rounder (currently #31/32) to move up. Or you look for draft and stash guys.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#68
Interestingly, Cavs fans seem to like the idea of Shumpert+Frye+ Cle 2018 pick for Hill+Richardson.
Of course they do.

It's actually the sensible deal money-wise - it works under the cap and it does free up a bit of future money for us. But for me, that CLE 2018 pick is just not really anything special. Figure it to land around #25 in a draft that to me looks pretty top heavy and may not have the depth of the 2017 draft.

The bottom line for me, is that if we're going to give up Hill, who is probably an "asset" in the sense that we could find another trading partner, AND give up Malachi, who is a young player who is probably not a future superstar but may yet have a role in the league and is cheap for a couple of years, then the receiving team has to give up SOMETHING. Frye is nothing. Shumpert, with his current contract, has no value to us (he might have some value to a contender - and looking at his numbers this year that might be really questionable). And I'll be damned if I'm going to give up two useful things for utter crap. We have to get something back, and a mid-20s pick is not even remotely enough. So, the question is, how desperate is Cleveland to make a splash this year? (Answer: Very. They don't want to lose LeBron in the offseason, or alternately, if they accept that he's gone, this is their LAST CHANCE.)

What I'm saying is: in a deal structured around Hill/Richardson for Shumpert/Frye, I do not even consider it unless the Brooklyn pick is on the table. Otherwise, what the heck are we getting back? Now, I'd be willing to, say, accept the BRK pick with something like top-2 protection. If it's not top-2, it's ours. If it's top-2, then instead we get the CLE 2018 pick plus the CLE 2022 pick unprotected. Now we're getting something of value back. If Cleveland doesn't want to play ball, too bad. They don't get our good players for nothing. End of story.
 
#69
Of course they do.

It's actually the sensible deal money-wise - it works under the cap and it does free up a bit of future money for us. But for me, that CLE 2018 pick is just not really anything special. Figure it to land around #25 in a draft that to me looks pretty top heavy and may not have the depth of the 2017 draft.

The bottom line for me, is that if we're going to give up Hill, who is probably an "asset" in the sense that we could find another trading partner, AND give up Malachi, who is a young player who is probably not a future superstar but may yet have a role in the league and is cheap for a couple of years, then the receiving team has to give up SOMETHING. Frye is nothing. Shumpert, with his current contract, has no value to us (he might have some value to a contender - and looking at his numbers this year that might be really questionable). And I'll be damned if I'm going to give up two useful things for utter crap. We have to get something back, and a mid-20s pick is not even remotely enough. So, the question is, how desperate is Cleveland to make a splash this year? (Answer: Very. They don't want to lose LeBron in the offseason, or alternately, if they accept that he's gone, this is their LAST CHANCE.)

What I'm saying is: in a deal structured around Hill/Richardson for Shumpert/Frye, I do not even consider it unless the Brooklyn pick is on the table. Otherwise, what the heck are we getting back? Now, I'd be willing to, say, accept the BRK pick with something like top-2 protection. If it's not top-2, it's ours. If it's top-2, then instead we get the CLE 2018 pick plus the CLE 2022 pick unprotected. Now we're getting something of value back. If Cleveland doesn't want to play ball, too bad. They don't get our good players for nothing. End of story.
I like this line of thinking but I'm just worried that nobody outside of Kings land thinks anything of Malachi (I don't). What if it was Mason instead? His hype seems in excess of his true value right now I would not mind selling high on him.
 
#70
Of course they do.

It's actually the sensible deal money-wise - it works under the cap and it does free up a bit of future money for us. But for me, that CLE 2018 pick is just not really anything special. Figure it to land around #25 in a draft that to me looks pretty top heavy and may not have the depth of the 2017 draft.

The bottom line for me, is that if we're going to give up Hill, who is probably an "asset" in the sense that we could find another trading partner, AND give up Malachi, who is a young player who is probably not a future superstar but may yet have a role in the league and is cheap for a couple of years, then the receiving team has to give up SOMETHING. Frye is nothing. Shumpert, with his current contract, has no value to us (he might have some value to a contender - and looking at his numbers this year that might be really questionable). And I'll be damned if I'm going to give up two useful things for utter crap. We have to get something back, and a mid-20s pick is not even remotely enough. So, the question is, how desperate is Cleveland to make a splash this year? (Answer: Very. They don't want to lose LeBron in the offseason, or alternately, if they accept that he's gone, this is their LAST CHANCE.)

What I'm saying is: in a deal structured around Hill/Richardson for Shumpert/Frye, I do not even consider it unless the Brooklyn pick is on the table. Otherwise, what the heck are we getting back? Now, I'd be willing to, say, accept the BRK pick with something like top-2 protection. If it's not top-2, it's ours. If it's top-2, then instead we get the CLE 2018 pick plus the CLE 2022 pick unprotected. Now we're getting something of value back. If Cleveland doesn't want to play ball, too bad. They don't get our good players for nothing. End of story.
I will be very interested in seeing how this plays out because I'd assign totally different values than you. Hill is not an asset that has trade value to me. As we have alluded to in the past, finding a deal for him is extremely difficult, there is just no market for him. Cle is the only one we have heard so far. Denver is another one but now that Kemba is available I think they would rather go after him. And regarding Malachi, I dont see how he has value. Yes he is cost comtrolled, but is he going to play a role on a good team? He cant even get minutes on the worst team in the league. On the latest Duncd on pod they were even suggesting that Malachi has negative trade value because he has guaranteed money for next year.
So yeah I see it as gaining cap space + a late first without having to give up anything that hurts.
 
#71
Of course they do.

It's actually the sensible deal money-wise - it works under the cap and it does free up a bit of future money for us. But for me, that CLE 2018 pick is just not really anything special. Figure it to land around #25 in a draft that to me looks pretty top heavy and may not have the depth of the 2017 draft.

The bottom line for me, is that if we're going to give up Hill, who is probably an "asset" in the sense that we could find another trading partner, AND give up Malachi, who is a young player who is probably not a future superstar but may yet have a role in the league and is cheap for a couple of years, then the receiving team has to give up SOMETHING. Frye is nothing. Shumpert, with his current contract, has no value to us (he might have some value to a contender - and looking at his numbers this year that might be really questionable). And I'll be damned if I'm going to give up two useful things for utter crap. We have to get something back, and a mid-20s pick is not even remotely enough. So, the question is, how desperate is Cleveland to make a splash this year? (Answer: Very. They don't want to lose LeBron in the offseason, or alternately, if they accept that he's gone, this is their LAST CHANCE.)

What I'm saying is: in a deal structured around Hill/Richardson for Shumpert/Frye, I do not even consider it unless the Brooklyn pick is on the table. Otherwise, what the heck are we getting back? Now, I'd be willing to, say, accept the BRK pick with something like top-2 protection. If it's not top-2, it's ours. If it's top-2, then instead we get the CLE 2018 pick plus the CLE 2022 pick unprotected. Now we're getting something of value back. If Cleveland doesn't want to play ball, too bad. They don't get our good players for nothing. End of story.
The catch is if they trade their pick they can no longer trade the Nets picks. They can only trade one due to their 2019 going to Atl with protections.
 
#72
The catch is if they trade their pick they can no longer trade the Nets picks. They can only trade one due to their 2019 going to Atl with protections.
They will likely offer the Clippers a pick swap on the Nets pick, although I would not be stunned if that deal ended up involving Love instead of the Nets pick.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#74
I will be very interested in seeing how this plays out because I'd assign totally different values than you. Hill is not an asset that has trade value to me. As we have alluded to in the past, finding a deal for him is extremely difficult, there is just no market for him. Cle is the only one we have heard so far. Denver is another one but now that Kemba is available I think they would rather go after him. And regarding Malachi, I dont see how he has value. Yes he is cost comtrolled, but is he going to play a role on a good team? He cant even get minutes on the worst team in the league. On the latest Duncd on pod they were even suggesting that Malachi has negative trade value because he has guaranteed money for next year.
So yeah I see it as gaining cap space + a late first without having to give up anything that hurts.
I agree that it's difficult to move and match salaries for Hill but he absolutely has value to playoff/championship contenders.....a guy that plays defense, makes his shots, doesn't need the ball to be effective. Cavs can use him, I've been saying he fits like a glove for OKC. Absolutely can't take back Tristan Thompson's contract which is longer.
 
#75
Of course they do.

It's actually the sensible deal money-wise - it works under the cap and it does free up a bit of future money for us. But for me, that CLE 2018 pick is just not really anything special. Figure it to land around #25 in a draft that to me looks pretty top heavy and may not have the depth of the 2017 draft.

The bottom line for me, is that if we're going to give up Hill, who is probably an "asset" in the sense that we could find another trading partner, AND give up Malachi, who is a young player who is probably not a future superstar but may yet have a role in the league and is cheap for a couple of years, then the receiving team has to give up SOMETHING. Frye is nothing. Shumpert, with his current contract, has no value to us (he might have some value to a contender - and looking at his numbers this year that might be really questionable). And I'll be damned if I'm going to give up two useful things for utter crap. We have to get something back, and a mid-20s pick is not even remotely enough. So, the question is, how desperate is Cleveland to make a splash this year? (Answer: Very. They don't want to lose LeBron in the offseason, or alternately, if they accept that he's gone, this is their LAST CHANCE.)

What I'm saying is: in a deal structured around Hill/Richardson for Shumpert/Frye, I do not even consider it unless the Brooklyn pick is on the table. Otherwise, what the heck are we getting back? Now, I'd be willing to, say, accept the BRK pick with something like top-2 protection. If it's not top-2, it's ours. If it's top-2, then instead we get the CLE 2018 pick plus the CLE 2022 pick unprotected. Now we're getting something of value back. If Cleveland doesn't want to play ball, too bad. They don't get our good players for nothing. End of story.
I agree completely. Without rhe BKN pick, which isn't as valuable the cavs hoped earlier in season, then we just arnt interested. It will probably be around pick 10. Otherwise I would rather shut down Hill after all star break and then have him for next year. I would be happy to take back some bad salary to make it work, but just a end of the 1st pick doesnt do it for me.
 
#76
Also, CAVS have to trade that pick. Lebron doesn't want to leave CLE, he wants to win amd win in CLEV. The Cavs using that pick to develop a rookie at end of the bench next few years insteaf of trading it for a chance to improve their championship odds makes no sense. Plenty of time to rebuild post lebron. He is not getting younger.

Lebron won't commit because he knows Gilbert will be a cheap piece of *toilet paper stain* and toss out any hand shake deals that are made behind the scenes in regards to doing all possible to win.
 
Last edited:
#77
I agree that it's difficult to move and match salaries for Hill but he absolutely has value to playoff/championship contenders.....a guy that plays defense, makes his shots, doesn't need the ball to be effective. Cavs can use him, I've been saying he fits like a glove for OKC. Absolutely can't take back Tristan Thompson's contract which is longer.
The OKC 2019 pick would be interesting. Maybe the kings could do aomething that conveys the pick once its in the lottery otherwise it rolls to following year
 
Last edited:
#78
We would need to move someone like KK for a 2nd round pick, but there are only like 3 teams with cap space and I dont think any of them are doing that. Bulls, Mavs and Phx.
Why? If anything we waive Shump and eat his salary.

Then if we wanted we package Vince and Frye to another team looking to dump contracts.
 
#79
Of course they do.

It's actually the sensible deal money-wise - it works under the cap and it does free up a bit of future money for us. But for me, that CLE 2018 pick is just not really anything special. Figure it to land around #25 in a draft that to me looks pretty top heavy and may not have the depth of the 2017 draft.

The bottom line for me, is that if we're going to give up Hill, who is probably an "asset" in the sense that we could find another trading partner, AND give up Malachi, who is a young player who is probably not a future superstar but may yet have a role in the league and is cheap for a couple of years, then the receiving team has to give up SOMETHING. Frye is nothing. Shumpert, with his current contract, has no value to us (he might have some value to a contender - and looking at his numbers this year that might be really questionable). And I'll be damned if I'm going to give up two useful things for utter crap. We have to get something back, and a mid-20s pick is not even remotely enough. So, the question is, how desperate is Cleveland to make a splash this year? (Answer: Very. They don't want to lose LeBron in the offseason, or alternately, if they accept that he's gone, this is their LAST CHANCE.)

What I'm saying is: in a deal structured around Hill/Richardson for Shumpert/Frye, I do not even consider it unless the Brooklyn pick is on the table. Otherwise, what the heck are we getting back? Now, I'd be willing to, say, accept the BRK pick with something like top-2 protection. If it's not top-2, it's ours. If it's top-2, then instead we get the CLE 2018 pick plus the CLE 2022 pick unprotected. Now we're getting something of value back. If Cleveland doesn't want to play ball, too bad. They don't get our good players for nothing. End of story.
I think you are being greedy here. The Cavs have been 3-7 over the last 10 Games so I think the pick could be in the low 20’s.

Not to mention we could probably package Frye and Vince and get another pick from a team wanting cap room.
 
#81
Of course they do.

It's actually the sensible deal money-wise - it works under the cap and it does free up a bit of future money for us. But for me, that CLE 2018 pick is just not really anything special. Figure it to land around #25 in a draft that to me looks pretty top heavy and may not have the depth of the 2017 draft.

The bottom line for me, is that if we're going to give up Hill, who is probably an "asset" in the sense that we could find another trading partner, AND give up Malachi, who is a young player who is probably not a future superstar but may yet have a role in the league and is cheap for a couple of years, then the receiving team has to give up SOMETHING. Frye is nothing. Shumpert, with his current contract, has no value to us (he might have some value to a contender - and looking at his numbers this year that might be really questionable). And I'll be damned if I'm going to give up two useful things for utter crap. We have to get something back, and a mid-20s pick is not even remotely enough. So, the question is, how desperate is Cleveland to make a splash this year? (Answer: Very. They don't want to lose LeBron in the offseason, or alternately, if they accept that he's gone, this is their LAST CHANCE.)

What I'm saying is: in a deal structured around Hill/Richardson for Shumpert/Frye, I do not even consider it unless the Brooklyn pick is on the table. Otherwise, what the heck are we getting back? Now, I'd be willing to, say, accept the BRK pick with something like top-2 protection. If it's not top-2, it's ours. If it's top-2, then instead we get the CLE 2018 pick plus the CLE 2022 pick unprotected. Now we're getting something of value back. If Cleveland doesn't want to play ball, too bad. They don't get our good players for nothing. End of story.
You are overvaluing Malachi in this situation. Players on a cheap contract that have his skill set are everywhere. For instance, I rather have Tyrone Wallace than Malachi. He was just plucked from the G-League 2 weeks ago.

Getting a 1st and expiring contracts to get out from Hill's contract and have an unhappy player off the team seems like a fair deal regardless of anyone's actual desire to complete the deal.
 
#82
One thing I noticed as I was messing around with ESPN Trade Machine... the Cavs are pretty crappy. No wonder Lebron wants to move on. Plop him on Lakers next year and he is instantly in a better situation imo.

God I'd love to have the Cavs 2021 first... should be a good one.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#84
The catch is if they trade their pick they can no longer trade the Nets picks. They can only trade one due to their 2019 going to Atl with protections.
In the deal I suggested, all outcomes would have CLE keeping a 2018 pick, either the BRK pick (if it is 1-2) or their own pick (otherwise). Stepien rests comfortably.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#85
I think you are being greedy here. The Cavs have been 3-7 over the last 10 Games so I think the pick could be in the low 20’s.
I don't know if I'd use the word "greedy", but yes, I'm explicitly asking for value back. To me, a mid-20s (or even low-20s) pick is not enough value back for me to pull the trigger right now. And the only other asset that CLE has that both works for us and that they might give away to acquire a veteran player to solidify their playoff chances is that BRK pick. It's true that there's kind of a big gap in value between their own pick and the BRK pick, but that's the way it goes. They don't have something in between in value to compromise on, which is why I suggested protections on the BRK pick, because even though I was talking about playing hardball, even *I* didn't think they would give it to us outright. And while I asked for top-2 protected, I'd probably be willing to negotiate that to top-4 or something. A decent chance (hopefully dial it in at >60%) at a good-but-not-transcendent pick with a fallback of a meh pick? Sure, I can probably live with that.
 
#88
The 2021 pick they actually *can't* trade because they have protection on the 2019 pick they owe to ATL, so it is possible for that pick to convey in 2020.
Could you not put conditions in that if the pick owed to Atlanta conveys in 2020, the pick that the Kings would've received in 2021 instead becomes one that is given in 2022. I think that is within the time limit for extending picks out ( could be wrong).
 
#89
Of course they do.

It's actually the sensible deal money-wise - it works under the cap and it does free up a bit of future money for us. But for me, that CLE 2018 pick is just not really anything special. Figure it to land around #25 in a draft that to me looks pretty top heavy and may not have the depth of the 2017 draft.

The bottom line for me, is that if we're going to give up Hill, who is probably an "asset" in the sense that we could find another trading partner, AND give up Malachi, who is a young player who is probably not a future superstar but may yet have a role in the league and is cheap for a couple of years, then the receiving team has to give up SOMETHING. Frye is nothing. Shumpert, with his current contract, has no value to us (he might have some value to a contender - and looking at his numbers this year that might be really questionable). And I'll be damned if I'm going to give up two useful things for utter crap. We have to get something back, and a mid-20s pick is not even remotely enough. So, the question is, how desperate is Cleveland to make a splash this year? (Answer: Very. They don't want to lose LeBron in the offseason, or alternately, if they accept that he's gone, this is their LAST CHANCE.)

What I'm saying is: in a deal structured around Hill/Richardson for Shumpert/Frye, I do not even consider it unless the Brooklyn pick is on the table. Otherwise, what the heck are we getting back? Now, I'd be willing to, say, accept the BRK pick with something like top-2 protection. If it's not top-2, it's ours. If it's top-2, then instead we get the CLE 2018 pick plus the CLE 2022 pick unprotected. Now we're getting something of value back. If Cleveland doesn't want to play ball, too bad. They don't get our good players for nothing. End of story.
Come on Capt. Do you seriously believe Hill is remotely worth the Nets pick? That's ridiculous. Did the Belinelli trade set high expectations for some? Would you really want Hill eating up 20million cap space next year on the bench? I wouldn't.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#90
Could you not put conditions in that if the pick owed to Atlanta conveys in 2020, the pick that the Kings would've received in 2021 instead becomes one that is given in 2022. I think that is within the time limit for extending picks out ( could be wrong).
They can extend out for seven years, so it is within the time period. And you're right, they could technically trade the pick as a "first allowable draft", which would just end up 2021 or 2022 depending on what happens with that ATL pick protection.