What to do with the Point Guard position?

by R-Man on May 29, 2008 11:08 PM PDT Comment 31 comments

This is arguably our weakest position, and Beno and AJ are free agents. Here are the most realistic scenarios that I can think of. What direction to you want the Kings to go:

1. Resign Beno

2. Draft DJ Augustine

3. Draft Russell Westbrook

4. Trade for TJ Ford

5. Trade for Kirk Hinrich

6. None of the above

I would love to draft Westbrook, but if he's off the board I would be open to trading for Ford or Hinrich if we didn't have to give up to much.

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

1 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

WELL

I do like Kirk Hinrich, I think with his scoring and his size, it will be hard for other team to stop our guards, IDK if I’d trade away our number 12 pick to get him, maybe package K9 or one of the maybe useless big men we have with both our 2ed round picks, this way we get our PG, and we can draft a decent big man. I feel like scents we have the number 12 pick we have to go PG. There are a billion of little guys just chilling in the league. I say, draft a skilled big man, because these are harder to find. But i DO like Hinrick

by shadowchicken on May 30, 2008 8:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Trade scenarios

I too prefer Hinrich over Ford. With TJ, I like the quickness and the fast break opportunities, but he is undersized and injury prone. Plus, he struggles with his outside shot. Hinrich is a bigger player, defends surprisingly well and has a better outside shot. He struggled last year because of the Bulls lack of an inside presence (and that affected all of their shooters), but I think he would be good point guard in the right situation. Plus, the dude is in bad need of some sun. A move to Cali would do him a world of good. That being said, I don’t want to give up too much in a trade because I don’t think he’s a huge upgrade over Beno.

by R-Man on May 30, 2008 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question

He struggled last year because of the Bulls lack of an inside presence

So how does that change in Sac? Is a “project big” drafted at 12 going to do the trick?

If that’s really his only problem, Chicago would just draft Beasley and move on. If they end up drafting Rose (which would probably be the only scenario that they would trade Kirk) means that they don’t think Hinrich’s the answer there.

If he could be obtained with K9 and 2nds (or any low-value filler) I wouldn’t mind, but unless Chicago’s just going to salary dump him (and isn’t offered anything better cough Haslem cough), I just don’t see it happening.

by smgmatt on May 30, 2008 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In a way K9 and 2nd rounders are better

That free’s up Noah and Thomas to play all those minutes. Just ask your friendly Bulls Blogger about adding extra competition for Noah and Thomas’ minutes now that Doug Collins is around.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on May 30, 2008 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get it done!

I’m ok with that. I’d take a chance on Hinrich over K9 and some 2nds.

by smgmatt on May 30, 2008 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

no offense, but

Why on earth would Chicago take that deal.

by sactown on May 31, 2008 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No offense taken

One reason could be to cut back on salary . . . not that I think they’d do it, but I’d be ok if they did.

by smgmatt on May 31, 2008 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

7. Two of the above?

If Westbrook’s available and drafted at #12 (or if Lawson is picked up later in the draft), I’d like to see the Kings resign Beno or trade for Ford anyway.

by smgmatt on May 30, 2008 8:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My preference

Is that the Kings draft Westbrook and trade for TJ Ford. I like that from every possible angle, and if TJ goes down, well that’s just more OJT for Westbrook.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on May 30, 2008 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

With!

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on May 30, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too!

by smgmatt on May 30, 2008 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

J-Will

What would you think about signing Jason Williams for a year or two for the minimum salary?

(I have no idea why, it is just a sentiment…)

by KingsFanfromCentralEurope on May 30, 2008 2:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

As a backup, of course…

by KingsFanfromCentralEurope on May 30, 2008 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Won't happen

With the exception of Corliss as a trade piece, Petrie doesn’t bring back players. He doesn’t seem to be a sentimental guy.

TickTickTickTickTickTick

by LeaguePassAddict on May 30, 2008 4:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Calderon > Ford

The best scenario would be trading for Kirk. Although I wouldn’t say no for a Calderon trade and a parallel Westbrook or Augustin draft.

The Raptors are very close to trade Calderon for Maggette, why not the Kings..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUvANZFA51s

Watch that little breath at the 16 sec... worth the 20 million $ salary!

by ZenBaller on May 31, 2008 7:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Source?

Where did you hear about the Calderon for Maggette rumor?

If they’re interested in Maggette (or more importantly if they’re interested in trading Jose), then wouldn’t an Artest, Salmons, or Miller-based deal be in the running?

by smgmatt on May 31, 2008 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Originally Posted by Contra Costa Times
“Trading Calderon may be the most feasible and profitable way to end the backcourt drama. Look for the Los Angeles Clippers, who need a point guard and can shop Corey Maggette, to be interested in Calderon. Ditto for Portland, who needs a proven point guard and has pieces to move.”

it also says that they like calderon more but Ford is basically untradeable, being injury prone and still owed 24 million. It would be awesome if we could get calderon and if hes on the table we should offer everything short of Kmart but i just dont see the raptors trading him. Here’s the link.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/warriors/ci_9301903?nclick_check=1&forced=true

"everything was beautiful and nothing hurt"

by richmond02 on Jun 2, 2008 1:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Everything

that I’ve seen out of Toronto has Calderon as a “lock” to stay in Toronto. The Raptors have been shopping Ford. Ford is far from untradeable, in spite of what the Contra Costa Times may think. His health will always be a concern, but he was 6th in PER for PG’s (27th overall) when he was healthy. We’ve bounced Ford trade scenarios around here that have been favored by the majority, whether it was Ron Artest or Mikki Moore/John Salmons as the involved parties. Untradeable would be if we wouldn’t trade K9(woof!) for him, and we’d do that in a nanosecond.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 2, 2008 1:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Misused Word/Phrase

I think that people have been throwing around the word “Untradeable” far too liberally. How many “untradeable” players have been traded recently?

Ben Wallace, Larry Hughes (granted, they were traded for each other), Shaq, Webber, Artest (when the Kings got him), Mark Blount (traded twice!), Steve Francis (twice also), etc. The list goes on and on.

It’s like the word morphed into meaning “not able to trade for full value” or something, which is ridiculous, because even SUPERSTARS aren’t being traded for full value (KG, Gasol, etc.), but they (usually) don’t get labeled with the “untradeable” tag . . . I just don’t get it.

by smgmatt on Jun 2, 2008 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

its a title reserved for overpaid underachievers, injury prone guys, and guys who go after fans. Its hard to get much in return for them except other “untradeable” players unless of course youre dealing with Isiah Thomas, Kevin Mchale or with whoever runs the Grizz now. Shaq is the exception but hes a 4 time champion and was traded for a malcontent so it made sense locker room wise at least.

"everything was beautiful and nothing hurt"

by richmond02 on Jun 2, 2008 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still Misused

That’s a long explanation for a word with another (obvious) meaning.

I know what people mean when they use it (I wasn’t saying otherwise), I was just pointing out that it isn’t the best word to use when it literally means not able to trade.

Terms like “Low Value”, “20 cents on the dollar”, “Garbage out, garbage in”, and dozens of others get the same point across, but when there are almost as many exceptions (“dealing with Isiah Thomas, Kevin Mchale or with whoever runs the Grizz now”) as those that meet the rule (“reserved for overpaid underachievers, injury prone guys, and guys who go after fans”), I think that makes it a pretty bad word to use.

As Section pointed out, the Kings would trade actual value for TJ Ford, and yet he’s being thrown into this “Untradeable” group. He meets the criteria you mention (which I imagine is why he was tagged with it), but he has real value in trade. Granted, it’s not as much value as if he didn’t have serious health risks, but here at StR we’ve been talking about Artest, Moore/Salmons, etc. for him with those risks. As a random example, I don’t think Charlotte fans are talking hopefully about a Morrison for K9 deal.

Untradeable != Less Valuable

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya

by smgmatt on Jun 3, 2008 6:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Untradeable"

And that gate swings both ways. If Ford did not have a history of injuries he would be a top 10 PG earning $8 million a year and Toronto would never part with him. So under those circumstances he would be…untradeable!

Untradeable = Upside when it comes to overused words of basketball lexicon.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 3, 2008 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

Untouchable, as in CP3 is untouchable. Adam Morrison is untradeable.

Section 214 is one lucky schmoe

by Kfan in Korea on Jun 3, 2008 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would you trade Morrison

For Kenny Thomas?

by smgmatt on Jun 4, 2008 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

I’d trade Kenny Thomas for Morrison though, only because Morrison’s contract is smaller and I’m sure he has a team option coming up very soon.

Section 214 is one lucky schmoe

by Kfan in Korea on Jun 4, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

First of All,

You laid the smack down on me with that princess bride quote, inconceivable lol. but isnt ron artest also considered to be (for the sake of your sanity) one of those 20 cents to the dollar players, so if ford is traded for him it would be a garbage(injuries) for garbage(locker room) trade.
Moore and Salmons is less baggage than artest but isnt it also less talent? Moore would sit the bench behind Bosh and Bargnani and does any team really want salmons as a starter. Ford kind of, but not really starts for Toronto but if he came here youd have to think hed be the starter. I dont see that trade as equal value, Ford would impact our roster, Salmons is a dime a dozen slasher who cant shoot and Moore even with a Kidd-like Calderon wont get enough playing time to put up those inflated NJ numbers.
Im willing to agree that untradeable=less valuable but not willing to agree with your statement that we are offering full value for ford. We are offering another lesser value player in Artest (which fits my initial statement, untradeables traded for other untradeables…sorry for the terminology) or Ford for the lesser talents of Moore and Salmons.

"everything was beautiful and nothing hurt"

by richmond02 on Jun 3, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

6 of 1, Half-dozen of the other

I wasn’t trying to say that the Kings would be offering full value for Ford, just that they represented a REAL value and not a salary dump or “problem swap” (although Artest definitely could be seen as such) . . . and I thought I mentioned that he wouldn’t even be available if it wasn’t for his injury history.

I just think that “Untradeable” is overused (along with “Upside” as Section points out, although at least that means what everyone would think it means).

by smgmatt on Jun 3, 2008 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yess

Salmons + for TJ. A risk, but what do we lose? JS is the odd man out. If JCalderon is available – GOooo FOR IT!! You re-sign Beno and that gives us good depth at 1, 2, 3 & 5. Draft that long athletic PF we desperately need at # 12. Besides, no real value at #12 in PGs. Sign one (or two) in the second and hope for the best…

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jun 6, 2008 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs