With a recent ESPN report claiming the NBA-owned New Orleans Hornets are shopping center Chris Kaman, it's only logical to connect the dots to this Milwaukee Bucks team that just lost Andrew Bogut for eight to 12 weeks.
This quick read takes a look at pros and cons of the possibility of creating a deal to bring in Kaman to the deer herd.
1. This current Bucks squad had no legitimate backup center even before Bogut went down.
Expecting Drew Gooden to play center can yield its benefits here and there but it's not his natural position.
Furthermore, looking across the depth chart, Larry Sanders, Ersan Ilyasova and the impressive second-round rookie Jon Leuer are also more effective at the power forward position.
Kaman would immediately bring a valid center option to the squad with his career averages of 11.7 points, 8.3. rebounds and 1.4 blocks per game.
I'm not even going to entertain the thought of Jon Brockman manning the 5 for significant time.
2. Kaman's current contract would expire after this season, making him a one-year loan only, with no major long-term financial obligations on the hook for the Bucks.
3. The Hornets are saying they just want to go with youth this season and the Bucks have a few young players at multiple positions, including Darington Hobson, Sanders and even first-round pick Tobias Harris as possible chips (along with picks) to sweeten any deal if necessary.
4. On the court, Kaman brings personality but also a style of performance that would fit the Bucks.
I'm not going to say Kaman is just like Bogut, but the two have some interesting similarities in their baby hook game (Kaman can score with this with either hand regularly), fairly reliable mid-range jumper and an advanced understanding of fitting into the team game Skiles demands.
Kaman's offensive game would maintain the capability of an inside-outside complimentary aspect to PG Brandon Jennings' great start this year.
5. This falls under the category of "we'll cross that bridge when we get there" but, assuming Bogut heals in the eight-week time frame, is there a timeshare problem at center?
As far as I can tell, that's a great luxury to have that the Bucks may not have had in many, many years should this scenario play out.
Should the Bucks trade for Chris Kaman?
1. Related to salary, the Bucks would be committing to a hefty portion of Kaman's final year, $12.2 million salary (unless the trade partners agreed to foot some of his salary).
That's a lot in change for a franchise struggling to put people in the stands in a strike year. The current squad is at just under $60 million with the luxury tax said to kick in at $70.3 million.
2. Do the Bucks have enough in the stable to entice a deal with the Hornets while improving their overall team?
It takes two to tango and as fans we often jump the gun, desperate to add talent while dropping our dead weight.
Stephen Jackson hasn't impressed, and his salary takes up over $9 million of the Bucks' payroll; would he have any value in New Orleans? Can the Bucks afford to lose other pieces without getting worse?
Other options, such as the young Sanders and Hobson may not have shown enough in an NBA uniform to be valuable in trades.
Losing Tobias Harris via trade so early in his career could also prove to be another Bucks blunder.
General manager John Hammond was quick to learn from his mistake with the John Salmons contract but forced to take on another questionable scorer in Stephen Jackson.
That said he's not afraid to shake things up and the NBA is a world of constant trades compared to many other pro sports.
My gut tells me this trade would never happen but I'd like to think Hammond could get it done by throwing in a young player (or two) with a lighter contract and a second-rounder to get Kaman.
The Hornets have shown their cards, which typically is a sign of a team without much leverage just hoping to clear a deal to play their young bigs.
The Bucks should take advantage.