RealGM

After the colossal spending of Mikhail Prokhorov this summer, we've managed to field one of the better EC teams so far this season. But I'm troubled by how we match up long-term against elite teams, ESPECIALLY at the forward spots. We need youth and length to defend the Lebrons, the Griffins and the Durants of the NBA.

Under the new CBA, our spending has limited our future flexibility. Getting under the luxury tax apron with younger players could allow us to make one more "push", with a big-time free agent S&T acquisition, an MLE signing or with a straight-up trade. SO, here's my idea:

Trade ID# 6172312

Brooklyn Nets Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players: Wilson Chandler, Ersan Ilyasova
Outgoing Players: Kris Humphries, Gerald Wallace
BRK gets younger and spreads the floor.
Williams, Johnson, Chandler, Ilyasova, Lopez
Watson, Brooks, Stackhouse, Evans, Blatche


Denver Nuggets Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players: Kris Humphries, Ekpe Udoh
Outgoing Players: Wilson Chandler, Timofey Mozgov
DEN trims long-term salary, while beefing up inside.
Lawson, Iguodala, Gallinari, Faried, Koufos
Miller, Brewer, Hamilton, Humphries, McGee


Milwaukee Bucks Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players: Gerald Wallace, Timofey Mozgov
Outgoing Players: Ersan Ilyasova, Ekpe Udoh
MIL clear the PF glut, and improve at SF and C.
Jennings, Ellis, Wallace, Sanders, Dalembert
Udrih, Dunleavy, Harris, Henson, Mozgov

We can't do sign and trades as long as we're over the tax... does this get us under it? I'm not even sure we can do a sign and trade if we are under the tax but it puts us over the tax.

I don't like this either way.

Chandler is nothing special while Wallace is the heart and soul of our team because of his defense and hustle. He's our third most important player. Meanwhile how does Chandler match up better with LBJ or Durant than Wallace? He may have an inch on Wallace but that is meaningless IMO.

Ilyasova, I'm not opposed to but at minimal cost as in Hump for Ily.

Bravo to ecuhus!

While I won't comment on the trade, you're the first person who's made a post setting the apron, and not the lux, as a possible target. With the ability to use the BAE and the full MLE, and S&T considerations, a rich owner like Prokhorov may benefot in free agency next year by targeting the apron.

I never even considered that startegy, so thanks for opening my eyes!

I'd pass for Milwaukee. Wallace is a nice player but he isn't getting any younger and he is always injured quite a bit. He's a complementary player to the guys you have (Williams/Lopez/Johnson) but to us he's just another ill advised attempt at the 8th seed. I think I rather roll with Ersan and see if he can round into form. Also, Sanders is not a power forward so the Mozgov for Udoh swap really doesn't interest us at all.

No. Bucks will do no win now moves without moving Monta.

JayMKE wrote:No. Bucks will do no win now moves without moving Monta.

You WANT to move Monta? "For the right price" and all I assume, of course. I just didn't know MIL fans even wanted to split the backcourt duo, no matter how ill-advised I thought it was.

ecuhus1981 wrote:

JayMKE wrote:No. Bucks will do no win now moves without moving Monta.

You WANT to move Monta? "For the right price" and all I assume, of course. I just didn't know MIL fans even wanted to split the backcourt duo, no matter how ill-advised I thought it was.

99% of us hate him. 85% of us would trade him for virtually anything.

Trader_Joe wrote:Chandler is nothing special while Wallace is the heart and soul of our team because of his defense and hustle. He's our third most important player. Meanwhile how does Chandler match up better with LBJ or Durant than Wallace? He may have an inch on Wallace but that is meaningless IMO.

Chandler is longer, younger and taller than Gerald. That helps defend the bigger SFs, and when we go small we can use him at PF. That USED to be true of Wallace, too, but I don't like him at the 4 anymore.

Believe me, I understand the whole "heart-and-soul" bit, but he is NOT our 3rd most important player. And who's to say Wilson couldn't become our heart and soul? He's quite the defender, too, and might have a chip on his shoulder after not wanting to leave NY.

If we can make this move, and then sign some key FAs with the full MLE and LLE , we could actually BE contenders, instead of stuck in alsoran-land. I don't see a better way of improving long-term than getting under the apron NOW.

By the way the RealGm trade checker needs to be fixed. If a team is over or going over the tax through the trade than it can only take back 125% +100k of the salary it sends out. At the moment its set so any team can take back 150% of outgoing salary. This trade would not actually work since Denver would be over the tax if this deal is completed.

Also, i think that even if this trade did work it, Denver wouldn't go over the luxury tax significantly for this season and next season just to dump Chandler, Brooklyn would still be about 7 million over the luxury tax and I think Milwaukee would rather bet on Ilyasova coming out of his early season slump.

I do agree that the Nets need to find a way to upgrade to truly become contenders, but that will be tough considering the contracts of their players. I think the best way to do that is to trade Humphries and Brooks for an upgrade at PF. I'd proposed a 4 team deal which landed the Nets Nene and Jordan Crawford for Humphries, Brooks, and a 1st the other day.

Lin Your Face wrote:By the way the RealGm trade checker needs to be fixed. If a team is over or going over the tax through the trade than it can only take back 125% +100k of the salary it sends out. At the moment its set so any team can take back 150% of outgoing salary. This trade would not actually work since Denver would be over the tax if this deal is completed.

Also, i think that even if this trade did work it, Denver wouldn't go over the luxury tax significantly for this season and next season just to dump Chandler, Brooklyn would still be about 7 million over the luxury tax and I think Milwaukee would rather bet on Ilyasova coming out of his early season slump.

I do agree that the Nets need to find a way to upgrade to truly become contenders, but that will be tough considering the contracts of their players. I think the best way to do that is to trade Humphries and Brooks for an upgrade at PF. I'd proposed a 4 team deal which landed the Nets Nene and Jordan Crawford for Humphries, Brooks, and a 1st the other day.

Nene for Hump/$wag/1st doesn't sting so much if Crawford tags along, but I still say that while Nene is better than Kris, he is older, more expensive, more injury-prone and a less cohesive fit next to Lopez.

Speaking of the Brazilian ball of butter, Denver can absorb Humphries with the Nene TPE. My deal works. Also, you're right about us still being a bit away from completely under the apron. Worst case, we may have to pawn Mirza off with some sweetener, to a team that can give us pure capspace or a minimum contract player. I just wish I could get MIL fans on board with this one. Would we have to accept Gooden instead of Ersan?!?!

ecuhus1981 wrote:After the colossal spending of Mikhail Prokhorov this summer, we've managed to field one of the better EC teams so far this season. But I'm troubled by how we match up long-term against elite teams, ESPECIALLY at the forward spots. We need youth and length to defend the Lebrons, the Griffins and the Durants of the NBA.

Under the new CBA, our spending has limited our future flexibility. Getting under the luxury tax apron with younger players could allow us to make one more "push", with a big-time free agent S&T acquisition, an MLE signing or with a straight-up trade. SO, here's my idea:

Trade ID# 6172312

Brooklyn Nets Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players: Wilson Chandler, Ersan Ilyasova
Outgoing Players: Kris Humphries, Gerald Wallace
BRK gets younger and spreads the floor.
Williams, Johnson, Chandler, Ilyasova, Lopez
Watson, Brooks, Stackhouse, Evans, Blatche

So your solution to getting under the tax/apron is to take on Ersan Ilyasova's contract of 5 years/40 and Chandler at 4/24? That doesnt make alot of sense, as humphries 2/24 comes off the books much sooner and you can likely do better by just trading him as an expiring next year. I dont see how taking on bad long term contracts helps us in the short or long term.

You are also saying your solution to gaurding the lebrons and durants of the world is to get rid of wallace, one of the better defenders in the league? for wilson chandler?

ecuhus1981 wrote:Chandler is longer, younger and taller than Gerald. That helps defend the bigger SFs, and when we go small we can use him at PF. That USED to be true of Wallace, too, but I don't like him at the 4 anymore.

you know who else is younger, taller, and longer then gerald wallace? fredrick weis. be he isnt going to stop lebron anytime soon. Wallace is an excellent defender, glue guy, and can certainly play the 4 to match when teams put lebron/melo/durant in those spots.
[quote]
Believe me, I understand the whole "heart-and-soul" bit, but he is NOT our 3rd most important player. And who's to say Wilson couldn't become our heart and soul? He's quite the defender, too, and might have a chip on his shoulder after not wanting to leave NY.
[quote]

wallace might be our second most important player. he is the motor that drives our team. when he is on the court we play with 10 times the internsity as a unit. chandler might be an ok defender, but he ist the kind that wallace is, that elevate your entire defense.

no thanks.

Don't see the Nuggets wanting anything to do with Humphries especially with the money he is making. Puts them well into the tax next year, and that is something the owner will only ok if they are a contender. Not to mention this will also put them right at the tax lip which will destroy any flexibility they would have had, not a good move for a team that has high hopes for the future.

The Rebel wrote:Don't see the Nuggets wanting anything to do with Humphries especially with the money he is making. Puts them well into the tax next year, and that is something the owner will only ok if they are a contender. Not to mention this will also put them right at the tax lip which will destroy any flexibility they would have had, not a good move for a team that has high hopes for the future.

They wouldn't be in the lux, with or without this deal. As for the money, they get Chandler's contract off of their books two years early, not to mention Hump's trade value as a huge, useful expiring.

The Nets would stand a better chance of Wallace being able to bother Lebron, Durant, Anthony, etc. than Wilson Chandler can.

ecuhus1981 wrote:

The Rebel wrote:Don't see the Nuggets wanting anything to do with Humphries especially with the money he is making. Puts them well into the tax next year, and that is something the owner will only ok if they are a contender. Not to mention this will also put them right at the tax lip which will destroy any flexibility they would have had, not a good move for a team that has high hopes for the future.

They wouldn't be in the lux, with or without this deal. As for the money, they get Chandler's contract off of their books two years early, not to mention Hump's trade value as a huge, useful expiring.

I don't know where you get your numbers from but they will clearly be in the tax next year, as in 2013-2014, trading Chandler for Humphries and Udoh puts them right about $80 million in salary committed for next year.

The Rebel wrote:I don't know where you get your numbers from but they will clearly be in the tax next year, as in 2013-2014, trading Chandler for Humphries and Udoh puts them right about $80 million in salary committed for next year.

I see where you're coming from. IF you account for Iguodala staying at a max salary pricetag, then they could be around $80mil after this deal. BUT, if they do re-sign Iggy, they would be wise to clear some long-term salary in the process. As is, the deal still saves the Nuggets $3mil in committed salary, and gets that money off the books sooner.

Would DEN fans be more receptive to a deal that moved Chandler and McGee instead???

ecuhus1981 wrote:

The Rebel wrote:I don't know where you get your numbers from but they will clearly be in the tax next year, as in 2013-2014, trading Chandler for Humphries and Udoh puts them right about $80 million in salary committed for next year.

I see where you're coming from. IF you account for Iguodala staying at a max salary pricetag, then they could be around $80mil after this deal. BUT, if they do re-sign Iggy, they would be wise to clear some long-term salary in the process. As is, the deal still saves the Nuggets $3mil in committed salary, and gets that money off the books sooner.

Would DEN fans be more receptive to a deal that moved Chandler and McGee instead???

Given the way Igoudala has looked this year I doubt he opts out of his deal, even still that $16+ million a year is enough to put them at the $80 million, as for clearing long term salary without doing your proposed deal they do not have an issue this or next season, as they will have about $69.5 million committed but they will 13 players on the roster, after you include the draft pick. Given that the only rotation guy they lose will be Brewer, they will be more then fine without a single deal until 2014-2015, which is when they may have to worry if they resign Iggy for a big contract.

As for trading Mcgee and Chandler, I would not do it for Humphries and filler, I would consider trading anybody on the team for the right deal, but the Nuggets have no need for a hustle PF that rebounds and scores garbage points, you see they already have one who is on his rookie deal for the next few years, and that guy has shown signs of decent defense and a jumpshot out to 16 feet.