According to Jake Fischer of Bleacher Report, a reporter who has developed into one of the NBA’s most reliable insiders over the last couple of years, the Sacramento Kings and the New Orleans Pelicans recently discussed a deal that would have sent Buddy Hield back to the Big Easy in exchange for a signed-and-traded Josh Hart.
New Orleans and Sacramento were said to be discussing a Buddy Hield-for-Josh Hart sign-and-trade baked into the Pelicans’ draft-week deal with Memphis, although it’s unclear if that dynamic remains plausible as Hart is still unsigned.
Such talks should come as no real surprise, as Buddy Hield is clearly on the outs in Sacramento. Replacing Hield with Hart would help to clear out the logjam at guard for the Kings and provide them with some much-needed wing depth. Hart is also an excellent rebounder, and not just for his position. Last season, he recorded a higher defensive rebounding rate than Richaun Holmes, Marvin Bagley, Alex Len, or Tristan Thompson. For the Pelicans, Hield would solve a myriad of problems for a team in desperate need of shooting. In 2020, New Orleans ranked 27th in three-pointers made, 26th in three-pointers attempted, and 25th in three-point percentage, an unacceptable weakness for a team sporting the wrecking ball that is Zion Williamson as their cornerstone player.
From a logistical perspective, although the Adams-Bledsoe-Valanciunas swap has already been consummated, the Pelicans and the Kings still have multiple paths of completion in front of them, although they may require a bit of patience and salary cap maneuvering from both sides. Salary-matching is the number challenge in any sign-and-trade, and this theoretical deal is no exception. Josh Hart would be subject to the Base Year Compensation rule, which would factor his incoming and outgoing salary differently for each team.
For the Kings, he would simply count as his new salary. However, for the Pelicans, Hart’s exiting number would either be equal to 50% of his first-year compensation, or his previous season’s salary, whichever was greater. Assuming that Sacramento offers a contract slightly higher than the standard mid-level exception, let’s say $12 million annually on a three-year deal, Hart’s salary would be represented as $12 million for the Kings and $6 million (half of his new deal) for the Pelicans.
A one-to-one salary swap clearly isn’t feasible in that situation, as Hield’s cap hold is over $23 million. The Pelicans only path toward salary-matching would be to include the recently acquired Tomas Satoransky, who was a part of the Pelicans sign-and-trade a few days ago, adding another layer of complication to the deal. Normally, teams are forced to wait two months to aggregate recently acquired players in another trade, but the league’s shortened offseason has also shortened that wait time, down to 19 days. The Kings and the Pelicans could agree to the terms of the deal and then wait the subsequent timeframe to officially close the trade.
The inclusion of Satoransky would still leave the Pelicans slightly short of matching contracts, as their incoming and outgoing salaries need to fall within $5 million, plus $100,000, of one another. Satoranskey and a signed-and-traded Hart would only account for approximately $16 million, compared to a little over $23 million for Hield. The easy solution is for New Orleans to also throw in former King Wenyen Gabriel, who’s owed $1.7 million next season. All of those combined salaries would still leave a small gap of a few hundred thousand dollars that would need to be accounted for, but the Kings could either slightly increase Hart’s initial salary, or they could write in his new contracts as de-escalating, which would push his first-year salary to about $12.8 million, more than enough to cover any gap.
Of course, as everyone learned during the Hield-to-LA near-trade, talks are just talks until the deal is officially called into the league office. With the Kings in need of wing depth and the Pelicans lacking volume three-point shooting, such a deal makes sense for both organizations, but the logistics and timing of a Hield-Hart swap may simply be too convoluted for either team to consider.
Not that different from the Kuzma deal in the sense that it’s a talent downgrade, but at least it frees up long-term salary. Buddy is worth what he’s worth, and you should make the best deal you can. I think this is a worse deal than that one unless there’s a first coming back, but maybe that’s all there is.
I do think if you’re going to send out Halliburton in a Simmons (or Siakam) deal, you should hold on to Buddy or you risk turning yourself into a team that can’t shoot.
I know Carl was referencing losing Hali, but this is my concern, with this deal. Hart is the exact same size as Buddy and while he plays bigger and is a better defender, he is not some elite defender. Replacing Buddy with subpar shooting and not getting more ideal big wing size in return is a bit of a concern for me. Feels a bit redundant to Davis in a way.
A potential Fox, Hali, Hart, Barnes, Holmes starting lineup may not have great spacing. Throw Mitchell, Bagley, Harkless and Davis in there and there isn’t one really great shooter in the bunch. Some capable ones though.
Admittedly I haven’t probably watched enough Josh Hart to really say whether this would be a good deal or not, but I would hope for better. Deal seems unlikely at this stage anyway.
“Welcome to the Kings, Josh Hart!”
I do like Josh Hart’s game, and he’d be an asset at the wing in Sacramento. Satoransky would be a fantastic throw-in, should it come to that, since he’s big enough to play wing minutes, and also has decent facilitation skills.
As Carl said, straight up, it’s a talent downgrade, but in addition to adding some depth where needed, it breaks up Hield’s contract into smaller, easier-to-move pieces, and lowers the team’s cap.
As described, this deal deserves a long look.
That’s what they said about the Webber trade but it didn’t work out that way.
Damn, I wish there were any examples where this kind of deal worked as intended, but maybe if I go back a decade-and-a-half?
I think the key there is not taking on the same amount of long term salary in smaller deals, but taking on less long-term salary period. If Satoransky is along for the ride, his deal ends this season, so with those two involved, this cuts long term salary for the Kings.
Kenny Thomas’ restaurant on K Street should have listed the appetizers under the header of “Movable Pieces”
Hey, those are “flexible pieces”
My guess is that McNair is valuing Buddy’s contract in trades as more than Josh Hart. I like Hart, but we need an upgrade in talent and size in my opinion.
I worry about our lack of size on the wing. But a buddy for Hart and Satoransky is a no brainier. Hart will fit in perfectly and Sato is another capable playmaker
That reads like a very narrow needle that would need to be thread to make this deal go through. I’m cool with Hart coming back but not at an overpay of $12M+ per year. I get that he can rebound well and may be a positive defender, but he is still undersized for a wing, much in the way of Terrance Davis. I think he is worth something closer to the MLE than $12M per year.
I also think it would quite a disappointment and slap in the face to McNair to go from nearly landing Kuzma, Harrell, and the #22 for Buddy, to Hart and Sartoransky for Buddy. Seems desperate.
Why do I feel the Kings have an aversion to anyone between 6’6 and 6’9?
I was thinking the same thing. Every year there are comments about how this guy or that guy CAN play SF, but they are not NaSF. 6’5 on the wing/SF is small in today’s NBA. The league is moving to 6’6-6’10 dudes that have Guard skills on the wing, while the Kings are persistent with putting out 6’4 or less dudes out there, and trying to play 6’8/6’9 guys at Center. It boggles my mind how they keep trying to put a square shape in to a round hole, every freaking year. I just don’t get it.
When Vivek said at the time that he surrounds himself with people smarter than him, we just didn’t realise how incredibly low that benchmark was.
He sure does not seem like a very smart person, at least not in the world of NBA ownership and putting a winning product on the court. But he will blame others and never take ownership (no pun intended) that he is doing a lousy job leading this franchise to NBA relevance.
Vivek is a Basketball Idiot.
I should know.
(It takes one to know one, and believe me…I spotted him across the room like we were two guys in the Secret Bald Man’s Club.)
For the record, the baldness is no longer a secret.
..How could you tell..?
“No. I was bald.”
For clarity, who exactly would be receiving such a slap to the face, and who would be delivering it?
To me, it would be the whole “better deal two days ago” situation in which something better was within reach but a Kings GM couldn’t finish. I’d think and hope folks in the media would call out the diminished return for Buddy in a matter of weeks.
For what’s worth, I believe we since learned that #22 was never part of that trade.
Oh really, I didn’t realize that. Still, I think Kuzma and Harrell are a better return than Hart and Sartoransky.
Also, just looking at contracts, Satoransky’s is not guaranteed. Has his contract been guaranteed yet?
I think it was at the time of the trade.
I feel like you are getting frustrated at McNair for a trade scenario that only exists on TKH. There is no reporting of a Santoransky-Hart sign and trade for Buddy. There was a vague reference to a possible conversation regarding Buddy and Hart at some point, no details as to when nor the details.
Uhhh, did you read the article? I’m purposefully responding to this article that Tim wrote.
Kuz…meh
Harrell is a beast though.
If you’re suggesting that what McNair had to offer was somehow equivalent to the opportunity for the Lakers to add Westbrook, and that McNair had the upper hand and fouled it up because, reasons?
I’ve got many non-existent bridges up for sale.
Obviously the Lakers deal was better than this proposed trade with the Pelicans. This “two-days-ago” shit doesn’t remotely apply to this situation, since the Lakers pulled out of the talks when they had a chance to get a Hall of Fame player. If it’s your contention that Buddy should not be traded for anything that isn’t at least as good as what was allegedly on the block with Los Angeles, then I guess I’d ask for a respite to the wailing and gnashing that so many suffer from due to Hield’s continuing presence on the roster.
There might be better deals out there, and any of them could be undermined by a third team with better assets. Barring some information that McNair paused or was unwilling to commit to the proposed Lakers offer, I have no idea what this has to do with idiotic mistakes committed by his predecessor.
The bottom line is this: Since the Lakers deal was scuttled on their end, and is completely irrelevant to the Pels rumor, would you take what’s in front of you, or do you remain hung up on what happened earlier? A case could certainly be made that this just isn’t a good deal for the Kings, and I might even agree with it. It simply has nothing to do with the Lakers talks. Nothing.
Whatever Andy, I still feel the Kings and McNair got used by the Lakers. Leaks of the Buddy deal went on for days but got scuttled at the last minute by Westbrook. The Lakers got a better deal because the Kings deal wasn’t consummated. McNair is not faultless in the deal not happening.
To me it is pretty black and white. If McNair doesn’t get a return that’s on par with the Lakers deal, or even this rumored Hart deal, he shares in the blame for a diminished return for Buddy, hence the how “2 days ago” comparison.
But if McNair was just sitting and waiting for the Lakers to pull the trigger and make the deal, and then they pivoted another direction–which he couldn’t control–then I don’t know how that’s on him. Unless, of course, he was the one hesitating.
Yes, the Lakers did use the Kings, but I don’t know that McNair could really control that. The Lakers seemed to have all the hand. McNair had no hand!
McNair had the best player in the trade negotiations. He absolutely had a hand.
I’d argue that Westbrook is a better player than Buddy.
But possibly a worse fit for that team, not that they would agree.
Of course, I’ve never disputed that. I was referring to the discussion between the Lakers and Kings before the Wiz came to the table at the 11th hour.
Don’t put the people who think that Hield is at least 50% of all of Sacramento’s problems in a position where they have to insist that he is simultaneously better than Russell Westbrook.
Seems like a pretty black and white statement that I haven’t really seen, but I don’t read Twitter, so maybe that’s why. Seems like maybe folks have a less extreme view of this, let’s say, in the gray area.
I checked with a lawyer, and you reprint enough of my stuff that you technically owe me royalties.
I will take payment in Nerds Gummy Clusters, but not Bitcoin.
I appreciate the candor. In a world that is 98% grey, your B/W view is at the extreme margins, and no amount of discussion or information will have any effect. If it helps, you don’t lack for company out there.
Should I ever decide to become a one-trick pony, I will absolutely choose a more interesting trick.
I don’t think it’s a matter of “couldn’t finish” as it was Buddy simply isn’t anywhere near the “get” that Russ is. If McNair threw in additional assets (picks) along with Buddy in order to trump the Russ offer, I’d venture to guess that deal would have gotten finished, much to the likely dismay of us all.
This. People who know I am a Kings fan understand that I know the team sucks, so they don’t even try to dog me for how bad they are. That’s almost worse than actually talking crap about the team. Its like “he is a Kings fan”. “Ah, let him be, suffering enough already.”
Thank God for Life, Health and Strength
Pelicans receive: 🙏🏽 💪🏽 ✊🏽 💯
Kings receive: ❤️
Lol, good one 👍
Same condescending to fans bullshit, different year. “This front office is going to make a huge move, they’re so aggressive, they’re leaving no leaf unturned.” Then it’s Buddy for Hart and, “This front office worked so hard, but wasn’t about to get fleeced, and they’re really optimistic about their new roster, so get out there and buy your season tickets, folks.”
I would be interested to hear your ideas for adequately huge deals that the Kings could be involved with, given the current roster, cap situation, and so forth. I would very much enjoy having my eyes opened to these opportunities.
I’m saying the same ol’ unsubstantiated PR cycle is tired. Stop trying to hype us up with “interest” in superstars without a real path or balls to a “big splash.”
But since you asked, I think Fox for Simmons could and should get it done.
This will make a bigger difference than you can imagine.
There’s a reason ostrich is served on a bun.
Definitely agree that this isn’t a needle mover, but neither was the Buddy to the Lakers deal. I also agree that this team needs a real talent infusion to improve, but it’s entirely possible (likely) that they’re not going to do a lot better than cap relief. That being said, if your offseason is Wright for Thompson and Hield for Hart plus the draft, there’s not a lot of GO! in those deals.
I felt that at least the Lakers deal gave the Kings two movable assets in Kuzma and Harrell. They have some value in the league and could be part of a larger deal down the road. I’m not sure Hart and Satoransky have that same kind of value.
File this one under “Meh” for me.
I think I’d rather hold on to Buddy than pay Hart $12M/year.
I’d rather trade Walton for a coach who might use Buddy better.
It’s very simple, bring Buddy off the bench, Microwave 2.0. If Mitchell plays well in the preseason, perhaps it happens. If the roster stays as is, I’d like to this SL:
Mitchell
Fox
Hali
Barnes
Holmes
Not a fan. Hield is a great spot up shooter and while I do understand that we are a little desperate to get off of him I would need at the least Hart and a 1st plus something else equivalent of another 1st round pick.
Hart pass, that trade offers a low hield. (Sorry, couldn’t resist)
If Buddy and Bagley go,
Fox will be the last of the Young Superteam.
#MaybeVladeWasWrong.
It’s fitting that on this shirt, Bagley is running away from the rest of the team.
But less fitting is him dribbling with his right hand.
(Or him not being in street clothes.)
And more fitting: Buddy lost his ball!
Pretty sure that’s just a ball randomly bouncing in front of him that he’s decided he has no interest in making an effort to grab.
I think he’s traveling.
This changes everything, Vivek shouts as he slams into a wall riding his unicycle and honking his clown nose
Hart himself is a solid NBA role player who will bounce around for 15 years and find himself getting rotation minutes on good teams. He is not the answer for this team, and does not break up the logjam at Guard. Maybe if they somehow swung and got Ingram in the deal (doubtful) then Hart would be a nice piece to add.
Kings already downgraded once in TT for Wright deal- IMO- don’t do that again.
Is Hart any. better than Delon Wright ? Just more deck chair placement !
Completely unrelated, but:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/giphy7-592b4ff45f9b585950e443f4.gif)
Danny Ainge has really let himself go.
I’m just here for his dad jokes.
Too many Dunkin Donuts while living in Boston.
For anyone that lived in the Pocket Area of Sacramento, there’s a nice local doughnut shop called “Manley’s Donuts.” They were really good. 🙂
Been there. Liked the Apple Fritter (I consider it a doughnut)
I consider apple fritters to be fruit. That means it’s healthy!
Speaking of Boston whatever happened to Carpenteria? Did he not survive to migration to TKH?
Oh shoot, good memory! He was funny and had a pleasant disposition. 🙂
Maybe he changed his username and avatar? I suspect some of you folks have done the same.
We’ve still got Tony X, who’s from a Boston-adjacent area!
…as well as some offspring who are college-ing over there!
(and I used to live there for half a decade) (was actually just in Springfield and Boston a little over a week ago)
Well that explains it there.
What is interesting about this proposed idea is that it goes against what we’ve heard about McNair. Wasn’t there something to his decision making when it comes to trades where he won’t pull the trigger if it makes the other team better. In this case, doesn’t this help the Pels, who are in direct competition near the end of the playoff ladder, more than it helps the Kings. Sure it frees the Kings of Buddy’s deal, but it clearly makes the Pels more competitive, right?
But it would serve his proclaimed goal of cap flexibility, no?
He also said he would be patient in waiting for a good deal. This doesn’t seem very patient to me.
Defensively that Pelicans team would be awful. Offensively they would be pretty good.
I don’t recall this. The only overt statement I’ve heard him make about this type of thing is that he always looks at it from the other team’s POV. I would like to think he would be less concerned about making the other team better than he is about making the Kings better.
Maybe he was referring to Team Dumars?
Yeah I don’t remember that either. If it exists I’d like to see it, because that’s an idiotic statement. It would change the shade of my admittedly semi rose colored glasses of Monte thus far.
I think it was discussed on this site back when he was hired. Maybe I’m misremember it. Someone with better research skills might be able to clear it up.
There was a clip of him as part of a panel at the Sloan Conference. That’s where I got the bit above.
I honestly think that trade or no trade, the Pels may be worse than the Kings this season. Zion & Ingram are fantastic talents, but they feel extremely thin, roster-wise.
Maybe, but I like their additions of Devonte’ Graham and Jonas V.
That’s true. Glad JV stayed in the west so that Metu & Moe Harkless will have additional chances to break that piece of shit’s arm.
“I love the Monte McNair rule to always flip trades in your head when you are first thinking about them. Often it is shocking — you will be debating if you will do a deal as proposed and then when you flip it you realize that if you were holding the other side of the deal that making the trade would not even be in the consideration set of deals.
For example, if a good player is in the last year of his deal, you often will look for players that have longer good contracts so you can ensure the player you receive will stay and you won’t take the risk they will leave in free agency. Initially we will painstakingly analyzing the relative merits of the deal but when we flip it we often quickly realize that if we were to think about trading a player with multiple years on his deal we generally wouldn’t even consider players with one year remaining.” – Daryl Morey
Wow Hield really ain’t worth shit
He was worth Kuzma and Harrell and maybe the 22nd pick. I’d say he has solid value yet.
I’m conflicted on this type of deal. Just like the Kuzma and Harrell package, I’m not wild about downgrading talent. But I also understand that smaller contracts are easier to move later, and that this type of two-dimes-for-a-quarter deal is most likely the return for Buddy.
I do worry about not trading Buddy, though. He’s going to show up and he’s going to work. Looking at the roster right now, I imagine he’d be the starting small forward? But if he’s coming off the bench I can’t imagine him being happy, and I’m not thrilled at the idea of keeping Haliburton on the bench just to keep Buddy happy.
Honestly I think I would be kinda OK with that starting line up. We all know that was the closing lineup and it was very effective last year. Have Bagley coming off the bench…maybe if he is playing minutes with Harkless, Davis and Mitchell they can reduce penetration some and offset his lack of defense a little bit.
Team Bagley won’t like it, but tough shit, he needs to ball out wherever he is playing to get that restricted offer next summer. Otherwise he is going to be looking at a Malik Monk (min) or Zach Collins deal at best. Playing against backups may give him a chance to show out some.
Say for the sake of argument, you trade for Ben Simmons. But you trade Barnes, Bagley and a FRP in ’22 to accomplish it.
If you can pull a Josh Hart for Buddy Hield swap, basically, then I think you do that.
Lotta if’s in there tho……
Though I think if you trade for Simmons, you REALLY want to keep shooters like Hield.
Agreed.
If you think you can make that work, then why not? I’m not sure Buddy is salvageable but if he is that might be the scenario that works.
There’s certainly no argument you need shooting around Simmons tho….
Yuck for me on that…a Fox, Hali, Hart, Simmons, Holmes is the worst shooting 5 in the league. Hali came back down to Earth after a sizzling start from 3. Shot 37% as a starter second half of season. Hield would need keeping
Or replacing with another shooter. Preferably one around 6’7ish that can play SF.
And I should point out that’s assuming you can pull off a Josh Hart deal, also. That’s a very complicated deal without New Orleans having a large enough TPE to absorb Buddy’s salary in full.
You don’t trade great shooters in the NBA unless you are getting a major talent in return.
Period.
How about shooters that go 0-5 from 3 until the game is out of reach, and then 3-3 in the last three minutes against backups, for a 3-8 stat line?
Buddy showed his worth in the failed Lakers deal. Monte isn’t trading him for scraps.
Question: How much more value does Kuzma and Harrell have over Hart and Satoransky, and does the passage of time and the dwindling of trade opportunities close whatever supposed gap there is between the two packages?
You sound like the real Grant Napear 👍
I am. And now sexier.
Reporter: How did you do it?
Buddy: Without Walton
Memphis needs shooting what about buddy for dhillon brooks
No thanks. Unless we can convince Brooks to stop shooting so much. Besides they already have the younger, cheaper, potentially soon to be better version of Heild.
Buddy is a starting-level SG. Made the second most 3s in the league last year. He’s worth a starting-level forward. Monte should not take less.
Hart is no bigger than Buddy and no better than Delon Wright ! This trade makes no sense !
Badge Legend