If we're going to take on the contracts of a bunch of old, injury riddled players, then we need to get something of value back in return. Giving away a solid PG and a prospect for a bunch of useless pieces and the 4th to last pick in the entire draft makes zero sense when you don't even need to trade the player in the first place.
George Hill to the Cavaliers?
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
None of this makes any sense.
Even Vlade's least popular moves made some basketball sense even if they missed in hindsight and I think if either Fox or Giles becomes an all-star and Buddy and Mason are solid rotation guys then I am 100% ok with the Boogie trade.
But all of this goes from let's do Hill a solid because he doesn't want to be here to let's actively harm the team to do this solid? No. Not on board.
Even Vlade's least popular moves made some basketball sense even if they missed in hindsight and I think if either Fox or Giles becomes an all-star and Buddy and Mason are solid rotation guys then I am 100% ok with the Boogie trade.
But all of this goes from let's do Hill a solid because he doesn't want to be here to let's actively harm the team to do this solid? No. Not on board.
You don't have to be. But you still understand that it would be ridiculous to toss him aside for a couple players that don't figure in to the teams future at all. There's simply no worthwhile reason to make this trade (as it has been widely reported) from a Kings perspective. The word "upside" comes to mind. There's no upside to it at all.
https://scout.com/nba/mavericks/Art...-To-Cavs-What-Is-Mavs-Specific-Goal-114135328
Scroll to end of article
Sorry could not link was on my phone earlier
Scroll to end of article
Sorry could not link was on my phone earlier
I agree. I'm fine with it as long as we don't send them Skal or any other of the more promising young guys. I mean, it would be ridiculous if you think about it. You sign George Hill to develop the youth for a ridiculously high amount of salary, and after 3 months you already want to dump him. And they only way any team would take on his salary is by adding a young player, who Hill was actually hired to develop in the first place. Kings logic and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens. Would rank right up there in the hall of shame of Kings trades...
Thanks for the link.
This article is pure B.S. though. Why would the kings trade a high second round pick to unload a contract, when they could just release a player for free to create a roster spot and keep the high 2nd round pick?
I think this is just a Maverick hack wishing that the mavs can steal a draft pick from the Kings.
This article is pure B.S. though. Why would the kings trade a high second round pick to unload a contract, when they could just release a player for free to create a roster spot and keep the high 2nd round pick?
I think this is just a Maverick hack wishing that the mavs can steal a draft pick from the Kings.
Mavs fans are currently in the midst of the denial phase of reckoning with your franchise sucking.
Great coach (who constantly has a knack of pissing off at least one of his players at any given time), good young prospect (DSJ), good complimentary player stuck being a number one option because they don't have anyone else (Barnes), and then a bunch of over the hill old dudes and borderline D-leaguers to fill out the roster. Yes, it's cool that Dirk is still playing and playing alright but that team as currently constructed can't seem to decide whether it's going through a full rebuild or a half-assed keep "contending" for grandpa's sake.
Great coach (who constantly has a knack of pissing off at least one of his players at any given time), good young prospect (DSJ), good complimentary player stuck being a number one option because they don't have anyone else (Barnes), and then a bunch of over the hill old dudes and borderline D-leaguers to fill out the roster. Yes, it's cool that Dirk is still playing and playing alright but that team as currently constructed can't seem to decide whether it's going through a full rebuild or a half-assed keep "contending" for grandpa's sake.
But for what reason(s)? Remember, at one point during the Summer, the Kings were below the bare minimum salary cap. They had to spend. Their cap situation is fine. They've even got $$ coming off the books at the end of the season. In short, there's no need to dump salaries.
Hill doesn't make that much $$ in the grand scheme. Look at how much salaries escalated with the cap rise. $19 isn't what it used to be. And the Kings do have a salary minimum to meet. But if they are so eager to unload Hill's salary, they can buy him out for relatively cheap next season or just let him play the contract out -- which only has 2 more seasons. Not exactly an albatross.
Hill doesn't make that much $$ in the grand scheme. Look at how much salaries escalated with the cap rise. $19 isn't what it used to be. And the Kings do have a salary minimum to meet. But if they are so eager to unload Hill's salary, they can buy him out for relatively cheap next season or just let him play the contract out -- which only has 2 more seasons. Not exactly an albatross.
They're really going all in on this Harry Giles hype; I can't believe this. I'm as high on Giles as anybody, but he hasn't played a minute in the NBA yet. Why are they trying to choose between Skal and Giles now? Remove Skal from the equation and your young frontcourt becomes WCS, Giles' hype, and the possibility of drafting a big in this draft. That's a thin frontcourt to say you're all set on bigs.
Why is there any question on how to open up a roster spot???
I mean really!!! Vlade can't be that incompetent can he???
Vlade, we are in a damn rebuild!!!
That means we trade or release the older vets and we KEEP the young players!!!
If you need to open a damn roster spot and you can't get a good trade offer, you release an older veteran on an expiring contract, and that is VC.
It really can't get much simpler than that can it?
If you need a roster spot, you release the 40 year old vet and allow him to find a playoff team to close out his career.
You keep the young core intact and allow them to grow and mature together!!!
I mean really!!! Vlade can't be that incompetent can he???
Vlade, we are in a damn rebuild!!!
That means we trade or release the older vets and we KEEP the young players!!!
If you need to open a damn roster spot and you can't get a good trade offer, you release an older veteran on an expiring contract, and that is VC.
It really can't get much simpler than that can it?
If you need a roster spot, you release the 40 year old vet and allow him to find a playoff team to close out his career.
You keep the young core intact and allow them to grow and mature together!!!
So why does kings need a 3rd team? does cavs want a 3rd team to take some of their salary JR or TT? (They are worried about Hills salary next yr)
Kings get Shumpert and TT salary, Mavs 1st for Hill, Skal
Mavs get Skal and kings 2nd Pick, Cavs 1st for Mavs 1st ?
Cavs get Hill dump Shumpert and TT salary and cavs 1st
the hell with Cavs first or Brooklyn, we want 2 top picks ! LOL
One can dream right?
Kings get Shumpert and TT salary, Mavs 1st for Hill, Skal
Mavs get Skal and kings 2nd Pick, Cavs 1st for Mavs 1st ?
Cavs get Hill dump Shumpert and TT salary and cavs 1st
the hell with Cavs first or Brooklyn, we want 2 top picks ! LOL
One can dream right?
This is getting scary.
No matter how high you are on Giles, you don't cut young, promising players to create roster spots, or trade them for low level draft picks. What do you gain?
If they are desperate to ship Hill out, waive one of the vets (Vince). It is a horrible idea to lose a young guy, even if they have not progressed as much as expected. Next year we might not have Hill and Temple. If we draft a big, and unless Shumpert is in our plans, the 2-3 position will be manned by Buddy, Bogdan, JJ, and MR. With another year of development, more minutes, and structure, MR may see his value go up, and can be traded at that time if the need arises. Right now, we are not getting virtually anything for him.
Not to mention the impact these stories have on the psyche of the kids.
No matter how high you are on Giles, you don't cut young, promising players to create roster spots, or trade them for low level draft picks. What do you gain?
If they are desperate to ship Hill out, waive one of the vets (Vince). It is a horrible idea to lose a young guy, even if they have not progressed as much as expected. Next year we might not have Hill and Temple. If we draft a big, and unless Shumpert is in our plans, the 2-3 position will be manned by Buddy, Bogdan, JJ, and MR. With another year of development, more minutes, and structure, MR may see his value go up, and can be traded at that time if the need arises. Right now, we are not getting virtually anything for him.
Not to mention the impact these stories have on the psyche of the kids.
Just read the Dallas stuff.
They want one of our upside prospects, and a second round pick for "helping" us get rid of said prospect, so we can dump George Hill for Iman Shumpert and Channing Frye.
That's right up there with the Philly trade if that goes through, not because of how damaging it is to the franchise, but because of the sheer stupidity and leaps in logic to get to the conclusion that it's a good idea. It would be the STUPIDEST thing Vlade's done as a GM even if it's not the WORST thing he's ever done as one.
They want one of our upside prospects, and a second round pick for "helping" us get rid of said prospect, so we can dump George Hill for Iman Shumpert and Channing Frye.
That's right up there with the Philly trade if that goes through, not because of how damaging it is to the franchise, but because of the sheer stupidity and leaps in logic to get to the conclusion that it's a good idea. It would be the STUPIDEST thing Vlade's done as a GM even if it's not the WORST thing he's ever done as one.
Interestingly, from the deals discussed thus far, the Kings don't technically need a third team. Hill and Malachi make $21.5M overall, and by cap rules, the Cavs have to send out a bit over $17.1M to get those two. Shumpert and Frye make $17.7M, so Hill/Malachi for Shumpert/Frye/(whatever terrible draft pick we are settling for) works without a third team. (The same goes for Skal instead of Malachi.)
Thus, if we were content to dump Skal or Malachi for literally nothing, there's no need for a third team. For us, the need for a third team would seem (at least under the framework of the deal as rumored so far) to be reserved for a situation where we *didn't* want to give up Skal/Mal for nothing. We could send one of those players to a team that could absorb them in exchange for a pick, then have a roster spot to fit in a Hill for Shumpert/Frye/pick 2-for-1 deal. But in that case, the third team would be giving us *positive value* for Skal/Mal, and not as rumored be fleecing us in order to take them - because we don't need that.
However, it's possible that the Cavs need a third team, because they are refusing to take back 2-for-2 in the trade. Why not? Well, perhaps the Cavs want an open roster spot to do something like trade the BRK pick for DeAndre Jordan. That would leave us in a tough spot, however, because if we're not getting a piece of the BRK pick, and we're not getting the CLE 2018 pick (because they can't trade both), then we're getting absolutely nothing for George Hill.
It doesn't make a lot of sense from our side, as reported. I don't know what to say other than that.
Thus, if we were content to dump Skal or Malachi for literally nothing, there's no need for a third team. For us, the need for a third team would seem (at least under the framework of the deal as rumored so far) to be reserved for a situation where we *didn't* want to give up Skal/Mal for nothing. We could send one of those players to a team that could absorb them in exchange for a pick, then have a roster spot to fit in a Hill for Shumpert/Frye/pick 2-for-1 deal. But in that case, the third team would be giving us *positive value* for Skal/Mal, and not as rumored be fleecing us in order to take them - because we don't need that.
However, it's possible that the Cavs need a third team, because they are refusing to take back 2-for-2 in the trade. Why not? Well, perhaps the Cavs want an open roster spot to do something like trade the BRK pick for DeAndre Jordan. That would leave us in a tough spot, however, because if we're not getting a piece of the BRK pick, and we're not getting the CLE 2018 pick (because they can't trade both), then we're getting absolutely nothing for George Hill.
It doesn't make a lot of sense from our side, as reported. I don't know what to say other than that.
You seem to be ignoring salaries in all this which is a big part of the whole thing. What if Kings have no intentions of using that pick? What if including that pick saves them a few million dollars over the next couple of seasons?
All this speculation doesn’t really make much sense. Why do Kings have to sacrifice a pick to get some other team to take on a young player (e.g. Malachi) if Kings could trade Hill and Malachi for Shrump and Frye straight up.
There MUST be more to the deal than is being reported. If Kings are trying to make roster spots then there must be other deals lined up somewhere else. So many permutations so I wouldn’t be jumping on everything that gets reported before final details of the deals are announced (if they do happen)
All this speculation doesn’t really make much sense. Why do Kings have to sacrifice a pick to get some other team to take on a young player (e.g. Malachi) if Kings could trade Hill and Malachi for Shrump and Frye straight up.
There MUST be more to the deal than is being reported. If Kings are trying to make roster spots then there must be other deals lined up somewhere else. So many permutations so I wouldn’t be jumping on everything that gets reported before final details of the deals are announced (if they do happen)