Hickson just got traded to Sac.
http://my.si.com/4Z0d68
No chance Spurs deal with Cleveland now.
Hickson just got traded to Sac.
http://my.si.com/4Z0d68
STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
Closest thing to good news heard today: Cavs still very open to making another trade before midnight using their $14.6M trade exception
Yeah. the Cavs trade exception will expire during lockout so they want to use it tonight. Give them ing RJ.
God I wish that would happen.
Rudy Gay to the Cavs? Gives Memphis room to resign Gasol and Battier.
I think a healthy Rudy Gay makes Battier moot. Even with new eventual lockout rules I bet they'll be able to afford re-signing Gasol without having to dump Gay.
Battier/Allen at SF is more beneficial to the team then Rudy Gay.
What ever the final numbers become, free agents will be faced with the same low available revenues from team to team.
In the trading of RJ, you gotta look at which teams need a scoring SF. There are a few. Clippers, Washington Wizards (but they just drafted Chris Singleton), 76ers (who are looking to get rid of Iguodala), Atlanta Hawks or perhaps even the Pistons (who probably won't bring back Prince) or the Lakers.
The next question is of those teams, which ones have parts that they no longer want. Clippers are looking to get rid of Chris Kaman, 76ers of Iguodala and Pistons of Prince. I'm sure there are more...
Lastly, we need to look at how the trade (or sign and trades if applicable) will affect both teams' salary caps. I think the Clippers would be the most willing: something like RJ and 2012 1st round pick and some cash for CK.
But just blindly stating "Trade Richard Jefferson" makes about as much sense as saying "End the lockout."
Another didactic post.
You do realize that sometimes people just want to express their displeasure with a player without having to articulate a trade scenario that won't happen, however exhaustively reasoned it may be, don't you? But then, by the same token, maybe some people just need to express their sense of superiority, considering you didn't actually put forth any concrete idea yourself.
My concrete idea is articulated in a different thread. Didn't see the need to garbage up Spurs Talk everywhere...
But I get your point - and a pretty good one at that. Some posts must be for "entertainment purposes only" and are not really designed for discussion.
But then, what exactly is a blog spot for if not discussion?
I miss the good ol days when Isiah Thomas and the Knicks were more than happy to take a bad contract off our hands... sigh!
@STEIN_LINE_HQ PS: Word is Knicks/Spurs still hot for Casspi and checked in to see if they could wedge their way into last trade fun of 2010-11. But ...
6 minutes ago via UberSocial for BlackBerry@STEIN_LINE_HQ Cavs told 'em they traded for Casspi with intent to keep him. GM Chris Grant says Cavs have liked Casspi since Kings drafted him in 2009
4 minutes ago via UberSocial for BlackBerry
Thompson is no center. As long as Tim is still playing with us he'll always be our center. Thompson is overrated imo.
TP, Splitter and McDyess to Atlanta for Al Horford and Kirk Heinrich (that should be its own thread)...
looking out for possible trades Utha seems to be an interesting option.
(I don't re start the old Tony for Harrison rumor)
Jazz have a dilemma. they pay big bucks to three bigs (Jefferson, Okur, Millsap make 33 million combined), but now have two young #3 picks in Favors and Kanter, who are the cornerstones of their future.
Jazz might be one of the few teams that could be an option for a RJ trade. (if they don't re sign AK). deal could be RJ+Blair for Millsap. the intriguing point for the Jazz could be, that they replace Millsap by a very cheap contract, while RJ brings back similar production like AK.
might take some more teaser from the Spurs to compensate for the financial disadvantage for the Jazz. (take back Raja Bell as well?)
I don't see the Spurs getting rid of Blair. Couldn't we do RJ & Bonner for Millsap and someone else?
we could. Jazz wouldn't.
If there is a good offer for Blair, I don't think Spurs will hesitate a single second to trade him. His questionable work ethic combine with a lack of improvement, especially defensively, put him in the trade asset category.
With the acquisition of J.J Hickson, I wonder if the Kings view Jason Thompson as somewhat more expendable now. Especially considering the fact that he's entering the last year of his rookie contract. ( I doubt they plan on paying him 4-5 million per w/ Hickson on the team now).
I'd really like to see if Spurs can get him for Blair/Green or Blair/Butler. He has the skills and size to be the starting power forward that Pop has been looking for. He has great size and developed a confident toughness in the paint the 2nd half of last season--which is something the Spurs desperately need outside of Splitter and Duncan. Not to mention, he has a nice mid-range pick and pop game as well.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 07-05-2011 at 05:58 PM.
They just traded a pretty good piece for Thompson, so I don't see why the Kings would then trade a solid center who could average a double double for an under-sized PF to sit behind Hickson. They might lose him as an FA, but I'd hold on to him until then.
EDIT:
Don't forget Dalembert it off the books.
Last edited by admiralsnackbar; 07-05-2011 at 06:21 PM.
I'd be surprised. The move was all about balance. They were overloaded at the three (Salmons/Garcia/Greene/Honeycutt) and thin at the four/five (Cousins/Thompson/Jackson/Whiteside). Even with Hickson, they still only have three rotation caliber bigs under contract and they currently have the second least amount of salary committed for next season. Whether the Maloofs are lying about being willing to spend or not, paying say $5 million annually to Thompson isn't going to hamstring them.
So I don't see the incentive for the Kings to make that trade. They'd go from 6-11 with a jumper to 6-7 without a jumper, just so they could hold off a year on giving a significant raise to their third big? Blair is likely to make in the range of Thompson anyway and it's not like either is likely to break the bank. If they did it, it would be more player preference related than financial.
I also don't see Thompson as a great fit next to Duncan, because of his mediocre athleticism/mobility. He doesn't fit with getting better defensively, which is supposedly the Spurs goal.
I see an incentive for the Kings if Spurs throw their first next year. They'd receive a big in Blair that's perfect for the 15-20 minutes that will be available at the back up PF spot and at the same time receive a first rounder for next season (which is valuable if they intend to not re-up Thompson--which could be a reality with them trading for Hickson). Not saying it's highly likely, but it's an idea I'd flirt with if I'm the Spurs.
And I actually think Thompson would be a good fit next to TD and Splitter, he doesn't have your implied Amare-like athleticism/mobility but how many quality bigs in the NBA have that type of athleticism? (Less than a handful)
One thing I do know for sure, he definitely would be the Spurs' most mobile and versatile big on the roster. Factor in his great size and his ability to knock down the 12-18 footer and I believe he'd be a great fit with the Spurs.
All in all, attaining a high quality big with elite athleticism to start at the four next year is pretty much impossible. Therefore, the Spurs have to compromise on the desired targets to some degree (which I'm sure they're aware of). That being said, Thompson is one of the few quality/versatile PF's out there that could be attainable for a reasonable trading price. Spurs would be wise to look into the scenario. IMO
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 07-05-2011 at 07:42 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)