Keeping Dieng and Bazz Long Term

[Lipoli390]

I agree Carlos. Thibs will likely roll with both Gorgui and Bazz until close to the Feb. trade deadline. But I think it's already clear that Gorgui is Thibs kind of player. Thibs has already praised him as a guy whose contribution doesn't necessarily show up in the box score. That's precisely the kind of guy Thibs values. Whether the organization will be willing to pay Gorgui's likely price tag to extend him is another question.

[thedoper]

If we don't extend we pick up the QO and they're RFAs right? If this is right don't we just do that? I'd rather let the market dictate what Dieng's real value is at this point. I'll be shocked if it's a max contract, but to me that would mean he's playing like an all star on at least one side of the court so good problem to have I guess.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

If we don't extend we pick up the QO and they're RFAs right? If this is right don't we just do that? I'd rather let the market dictate what Dieng's real value is at this point. I'll be shocked if it's a max contract, but to me that would mean he's playing like an all star on at least one side of the court so good problem to have I guess.

If we can use the 5th year we get and nobody else does to extend him cheaper now we need to do it. Teams handed out max deals left and right this past summer because the first max is easier to swallow than the second. If Harrison Barnes gets a max deal you don't think Dieng would get the max? Dieng is a better player. Dieng is getting a 4 year max deal this summer. We can afford Dieng, Lavine, Wiggins and Towns on rookie max deals. Keeping Lavine/Wiggins/Towns together won't be hard this first round of contracts. They at best can combine for 80% of the cap (assuming Towns earns the 30%) leaving 20% to fill in around them. Ricky and Pek will have to go, but we can probably keep Dieng on this first contract if we need to. You build around 3 guys and fill in elsewhere. GS got absolutely lucky with their timing to get 4, but everyone else will have to build around 3 and our 3 are Lavine/Wiggins/Towns. No other move we make is going to hold us back from keeping them together because everyone else is expendable on some level.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

If we don't extend we pick up the QO and they're RFAs right? If this is right don't we just do that? I'd rather let the market dictate what Dieng's real value is at this point. I'll be shocked if it's a max contract, but to me that would mean he's playing like an all star on at least one side of the court so good problem to have I guess.

If we can use the 5th year we get and nobody else does to extend him cheaper now we need to do it. Teams handed out max deals left and right this past summer because the first max is easier to swallow than the second. If Harrison Barnes gets a max deal you don't think Dieng would get the max? Dieng is a better player. Dieng is getting a 4 year max deal this summer. We can afford Dieng, Lavine, Wiggins and Towns on rookie max deals. Keeping Lavine/Wiggins/Towns together won't be hard this first round of contracts. They at best can combine for 80% of the cap (assuming Towns earns the 30%) leaving 20% to fill in around them. Ricky and Pek will have to go, but we can probably keep Dieng on this first contract if we need to. You build around 3 guys and fill in elsewhere. GS got absolutely lucky with their timing to get 4, but everyone else will have to build around 3 and our 3 are Lavine/Wiggins/Towns. No other move we make is going to hold us back from keeping them together because everyone else is expendable on some level.

That might be the theory right now, but that could change as the year progresses.

The only guy on our roster that is a no-doubt-about-it must keep is KAT, simply because there is literally no one else in the NBA I would trade him for, and I suspect most folks here would agree. Everyone else is "expendable" for the right return.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

If we don't extend we pick up the QO and they're RFAs right? If this is right don't we just do that? I'd rather let the market dictate what Dieng's real value is at this point. I'll be shocked if it's a max contract, but to me that would mean he's playing like an all star on at least one side of the court so good problem to have I guess.

If we can use the 5th year we get and nobody else does to extend him cheaper now we need to do it. Teams handed out max deals left and right this past summer because the first max is easier to swallow than the second. If Harrison Barnes gets a max deal you don't think Dieng would get the max? Dieng is a better player. Dieng is getting a 4 year max deal this summer. We can afford Dieng, Lavine, Wiggins and Towns on rookie max deals. Keeping Lavine/Wiggins/Towns together won't be hard this first round of contracts. They at best can combine for 80% of the cap (assuming Towns earns the 30%) leaving 20% to fill in around them. Ricky and Pek will have to go, but we can probably keep Dieng on this first contract if we need to. You build around 3 guys and fill in elsewhere. GS got absolutely lucky with their timing to get 4, but everyone else will have to build around 3 and our 3 are Lavine/Wiggins/Towns. No other move we make is going to hold us back from keeping them together because everyone else is expendable on some level.

That might be the theory right now, but that could change as the year progresses.

The only guy on our roster that is a no-doubt-about-it must keep is KAT, simply because there is literally no one else in the NBA I would trade him for, and I suspect most folks here would agree. Everyone else is "expendable" for the right return.

That return simply isn't realistic based on their age, skill, salary and team control of their near future. You're talking a handful of guys in the league they should be traded for that those teams aren't getting rid of. It'd be dumb to trade them for any established player outside the top 10-15 while also being 26 and under because GS is a super team you can't compete against with just 2 stars and who's trading a young top 10-15 player that fits here? Anyone over 26 is going to be out of their prime when Towns enters his so the time frame just doesn't match up. I don't see the point trading 1 or 2 young studs to get better now when the golden gate bridge is up and not letting passengers through. PG13, Kawhi, Lillard, Demarcus, AD, Klay, Wall, Giannis, Drummond, Porzingas, Draymond, Kyrie. Who on that list is getting moved for Lavine or Wiggins and also fits well next to Towns? I just don't see the return there for the potential we would be giving up.

[TheFuture]

I'm sure Demarcus could be had for wiggins because of his looming second max and everything that has transpired in Sacramento over the years. I wouldn't make the trade because of the contract and his personality fit here, but there is no denying a Cousins/KAT combo would be frightening.

Rubio, Dieng, and Bazz for Cousins and Collision I'd be all over.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

I'm sure Demarcus could be had for wiggins because of his looming second max and everything that has transpired in Sacramento over the years. I wouldn't make the trade because of the contract and his personality fit here, but there is no denying a Cousins/KAT combo would be frightening.

Rubio, Dieng, and Bazz for Cousins and Collision I'd be all over.

I used to want Cousins, but 2 all-star frontcourt players just doesn't work in today's NBA. There's only one ball to dump into the post and you limit Towns when you put him out on the perimeter to space the floor. I think the only frontcourts that work with 2 all-stars is one has to be a low usage defensive guy while the other gets most of the touches and frankly Towns is going to be better on both ends of the court than Cousins. I don't think you can make two high usage guys work in the frontcourt unless you stager them a lot which at that point why bother if they don't fit great when the game matters most down the stretch in the 4th quarter. I don't think another all-star big fits here unless they also can hang out on the perimeter for a bit during games and Cousins doesn't do that.

[Lipoli390]

I agree with Q that KAT is the only player who should be completely off limits for any trade. However, I agree with what the point that I think Kahns was making -- namely that it's hard to conceive of a return that would justify trading Wiggins or LaVine. I'll list several reasons:

1. Any player worthwhile getting in exchange would be a max contract player so there wouldn't be any salary cap benefit. In fact, any worthwhile player we could get in return would likely have a higher max than the initial max we'd have to give Wiggins or LaVine

2. A lot of players worth getting in return would not be as good a match age-wise with KAT as Wiggins are LaVine are.

3. Wiggins and LaVine bring the added value of experience playing with KAT.

We'll see, but I don't see a realistic scenario where we would get fair value in exchange for either Wiggins or LaVine. If we traded either it would be for a significantly less talented player at a significantly lower salary or expiring contract for the purpose of avoiding the luxury tax. I hope we don't end up going down that road. And I certainly hope our front office doesn't prematurely lose patience with Wiggins or LaVine.

[Coolbreeze44]

I must be losing my sanity or something. Shouldn't we be ecstatic that we have Wiggins and Lavine and can reap the benefits of the players they will become under Thibs? They are both potential all stars. Isn't this the place we always wanted to be? Having a young talented team that can grow into something special? I just can't fathom trading either one of them at this point. Is it just me that finds this notion rather odd?

[Monster]

I must be losing my sanity or something. Shouldn't we be ecstatic that we have Wiggins and Lavine and can reap the benefits of the players they will become under Thibs? They are both potential all stars. Isn't this the place we always wanted to be? Having a young talented team that can grow into something special? I just can't fathom trading either one of them at this point. Is it just me that finds this notion rather odd?

You are not alone. I don't really get it either.