what can Brooklyn get for: hump, teletovic, brooks?

[M-C-G]

I could see the Bucks offering an Ellis/Gooden/Daniels package.
Could Ellis thrive in a 6th man role playing with Deron Williams?

Why in the world would we do that? I would way rather just let Ellis opt out, Daniels expire....that's 12M right there, with only 2 more years of Gooden at 6-7M, and actually he has some value as an expiring after next season.

[M-C-G]

Oh and the Monte Ellis who thinks he is as good as Wade, won't be taking a 6th man role any time soon.

[shagadelic45]

Humphries, Brooks, Pick could probably land you:

High end: Bargnani

Low end: Jason Maxiell, Stuckey

i like the detroit idea...any pistons fans?

I'd take the trio for Ben Gordon.

cha would have to add value...gordon for hump straight up is even

[parson]

I really want to know why the Nets gave Humphries that deal like less than 6 months ago and are now trying to get rid of him?

What's the thought process? Did they think Hump was gonna develop more and be better or something? Did they think some other team is going to give him more money?

They signed him for the purpose of being able to trade him and take back 15 million in salary. the choices are either:

a) dont sign humphries, and not be able to trade for someone like millsap or josh smith.

or

b) sign humphries, and then have the available salary to send out for a millsap or smith

the nets were over the salary cap and luxury tax by a large margin before signing humphries. the only reason they could bring him back is because they owned his rights. it was a no brainer to not only bring him back, but to bring him back on the highest salary/shortest length possible

Could you honestly ever believe that Humphries could get Milsap or Smith?

It's as if the Nets found a paintbrush, walked over to a corner and started painting themselves into it.

[basketbob]

i think the nuggets might like Teletovic for Mozgov.

[PetroNet]

They signed him for the purpose of being able to trade him and take back 15 million in salary. the choices are either:

a) dont sign humphries, and not be able to trade for someone like millsap or josh smith.

or

b) sign humphries, and then have the available salary to send out for a millsap or smith

the nets were over the salary cap and luxury tax by a large margin before signing humphries. the only reason they could bring him back is because they owned his rights. it was a no brainer to not only bring him back, but to bring him back on the highest salary/shortest length possible

Could you honestly ever believe that Humphries could get Milsap or Smith?

It's as if the Nets found a paintbrush, walked over to a corner and started painting themselves into it.

Whether or not they can land Milsap or Smith is irrelevant. At the very least, signing hump to the contract they did allows them a chance to even be in the running for those types of players. it was a great signing for the nets, as it gives them flexibility they would otherwise not have.

If you want to criticize trading for Johson and his contract, giving lopez the Max, or overpaying Wallace you can make very legit arguments for that. But to say giving humphries that contract AFTER the team was already committed to being over the luxury tax for the next 4 seasons was a bad signing just shows a lack of understand of the Nets situation.

your options are either:

A) Be over the cap/tax for the next 4 years AND have the ability to take back 15M in a trade

or

B) be over the cap/tax for the next 4 years and NOT have the ability to take back hard any salary in a trade

they sionged humphries as a trade asset. worst case they deal him as an expiring next year for a pick or young asset

[WizardsWorld]

Hump for Gordon makes too much sense not to happen. Its going down in a matter of hours.

[shagadelic45]

yea..prob right

[parson]

They signed him for the purpose of being able to trade him and take back 15 million in salary. the choices are either:

a) dont sign humphries, and not be able to trade for someone like millsap or josh smith.

or

b) sign humphries, and then have the available salary to send out for a millsap or smith

the nets were over the salary cap and luxury tax by a large margin before signing humphries. the only reason they could bring him back is because they owned his rights. it was a no brainer to not only bring him back, but to bring him back on the highest salary/shortest length possible

Could you honestly ever believe that Humphries could get Milsap or Smith?

It's as if the Nets found a paintbrush, walked over to a corner and started painting themselves into it.

Whether or not they can land Milsap or Smith is irrelevant. At the very least, signing hump to the contract they did allows them a chance to even be in the running for those types of players. it was a great signing for the nets, as it gives them flexibility they would otherwise not have.

Well then, sign ME for $11 million. That way, you can "be in the running" to trade me for Monta Ellis. Right?

[PetroNet]

Well then, sign ME for $11 million. That way, you can "be in the running" to trade me for Monta Ellis. Right?

thats basically exactly what the nets did. signed humphries to big money just so they will have an expiring contract at some point.

if you dont think someone is going to give us something of value next year for humps 12M expiring, you are crazy

[shagadelic45]

why didn't broklyn sing hump to a 1 year deal or a team option on the second year......that would have been the smarter/better move....hump would have had way more trade value as an expiring this year, to net them something good...

[Wasabi_Johnson]

why didn't broklyn sing hump to a 1 year deal or a team option on the second year......that would have been the smarter/better move....hump would have had way more trade value as an expiring this year, to net them something good...

I could be wrong but players who sign one year deals do not have bird rights. And no NBA player is going to sign a 1 year deal and risk injury and guarantee money.

[shagadelic45]

ahhh......thanks, maybe they could have at least put in a buy out option on the second year

[HartfordWhalers]

Felt like hump brooks and a pick for best available since hump was signed. And the alternative was simply no hump, so for ability and trade matching it made sense. Sure 10m would have felt better, but who is BK to say no, and prok sleeps in a bed of money anyway.


Problem was, Hump has underperformed. So there goes his trade value. And use.

[cucad8]

if you dont think someone is going to give us something of value next year for humps 12M expiring, you are crazy

Problem with that is there are a LOT of teams with big expirings next season. Just him by himself doesn't do a ton for you. If you're expecting a big return, there'll be competition, and you'd need assets with the expiring. And unfortunately, Brooks and Teletovic aren't good young assets worth adding to it. Other teams will have better, and it'll be a seller's market if someone is truly pawning off a big deal.