I was just curious as to everyone's opinion on whether the Kings should be in trade talks with the Celtics if they decide to blow it up. Personally, I don't see their big three having much trade value due to a combination of age and contract size, so I think a team like the Kings could make a move at one of their big three and pretty much just absorb the contract while also giving up a project player (Hassan, Honeycutt, etc.). It is very possible that I am delusional, but I just don't see a team offering anything special to the Celtics for a rental on Garnett (21 million), Allen (11 million), or Pierce (3 years at 15 million). I think having KG would be beneficial to Cousins' development, would add leadership and would be a good guy to run the half court offense through (I'd give up Hickson for KG, seeing as we can only resign one of Hickson and JT, and JT has shown more consistency). Having Allen would be great to add a shooter and a guy who is not looking to dribble the ball (good stretch player, consistency, etc.). While Pierce would probably make the most sense on the Kings position wise, he doesn't make too much sense for the team contract wise (as his contract would be in the way when it came time to re-sign Tyreke; though, maybe it would be fine because he would be off the books the year DeMarcus' contract hike went into affect).
Anyways, just want to hear some opinions. I think KG, Pierce, or Allen on the Kings would each add much needed leadership as well as something else unique to the team. And again, maybe I'm crazy, but if their record remains bad and they do actually look to make trades, I just don't see a long line of teams hungry (or monetarily capable) of grabbing them (and therefore, I think we could pretty much just act as a contract absorber).