remy23

I am not really advocating this trade, but just throwing it out there.

Christie and Cleeves to MIL for Michael Redd...

It would hurt Sacramento in the defensive department, Christie is excellent.

But in the youth, scoring and three-point game, it would help the Kings.

I bet the salaries don't match... but as a random thought, of the Kings starters, I see Divac/Webber finishing as Kings before Christie.

Any thoughts?

k^2

I think the title of the post said it all....Crazy Trade. If we're gonna trade Christie we're gonna get someone equal or at least proven in return.

__________________
The history of human opinion is scarcely anything more than the history of human errors. - voltaire

Wiggum

Why would the Kings trade away defense for more offense? They already have three major scoring threats (Bibby, Stojakovic, Webber).

remy23

ack! Just asking.

Not all of the Kings will finish their careers in Sac-Town. Of course Bibby, Webber, Divac will. And probably Peja.

But I have a feeling Christie may be replaced. With Wallace and the Taiwanese SG/SF, along with Hedo, it seems as if back-ups for Christie are already lined up.

Not saying Sacramento would do it, I said it was a hypothetical situation.

From a logical standpoint, Christie probably has 2-3 solid years in him before slipping. So I was asking cuz... either he will slip to the bench or go.

^^V

*high tails away before getting killed*

Wiggum

What I'm saying is the Kings don't need any more offense at shooting guard right now. Yeah, Christie probably is gonna be gone in a few years, but he's needed now.

remy23

This trade idea was not about bringing another 25ppg. But in watching Christie, you have probably noticed his perimeter shot is streaky. It was all about getting a SG with a consistent shot.

Considering the Kings will probably win a title in a few years, getting rid of Christie then would look even worse than doing it now. Because it would look cold for Sac to pay him back for helping him to win a title by sending him off. It just doesn't seem like he'll retire a King. Somebody is gonna go.

<<<D>>>

It's a bit tough nowadays for teams to have a superb shut-down type of defenders, Christie is one of them in the NBA, He's always been, but he has improved a lot and made this style of play his priority. They have enough offense to make them successful and Christie can put up decent offensive numbers. You have to keep in mind, their are a lot of great players at the 2's & 3's and you can depend on Christie to either slow their game down or make them work harder. Theirs always room for youth, but why lose stability over that?? IMO - Not a good trade

__________________
HELP SUPPORT THE SITE!! BECOME A SUPPORTING MEMBER TODAY

Click HERE For Details!

remy23

I was thinking long-term. Several years down the road. The luxury tax is going to bite the Kings now but unless a M. Cuban approach of saying "To hell with the luxury tax" is adopted here, Sacramento is going to lose a player (or two). The real question is "Who will it be" or "Why?" I cannot answer that. But when the time comes, Sac-Town will have decisions to make. Something tells me if might be Christie, to me, he seems to be least secured starter.

c_dog

This would be a great trade for the Bucks, but it won't benefit the Kings. Michael Redd isn't worth nearly as much as Christie to start with. Maybe a Ray Allen and Christie trade? XD Yeah, right. Besides, we have plenty of scorers in Sac already.

The OUTLAW

I think that Christie is a better fit for the Kings but I believe that Redd is a better all around player.

__________________
One thing a non-conformist can't stand is another non-conformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standards of non-conformity.

c_dog

Bah, no way. Christie is an above average shooter, inside and outside, and an excellent defender. If we were to trade him it would have to be for Brent Barry, or maybe Ron Artest.

Doggpound

Has anyone run this by Doug's wife yet?