New Approach to MIN Trades

[shrink]

I believe that one of the most likely trades we will see early in the season will be the Wolves moving some of their vets (Budinger, Brewer, Barea, maybe Kevin Martin). They simply have too many players that need minutes to play them all, so these guys will lose value if they stay.

Unfortunately, finding something MIN will value is not easy. They have a dual goal, to win now and develop their talented young players, so adding a contributing player can be confusing. They don't need to add a player that needs minutes - in fact, they are trading those guys away. They don't need an expiring as much as most teams either, since they will not have usable cap space, nor lux worries, next season.

I think this leaves two courses of action.

1. Look to trade for a two-year deal that is less productive than what they send out, plus compensation. For example, people have different views on what Budinger would be expected to produce on another team, but I'm sure we could agree that there are less productive two-year deals out there. For most teams, having two years of increased production for the same money is valuable, and they should provide some form of future compensation for it. MIN has no problem adding a completely unproductive player, as long as they get something back.

This also could be done in a three-way. I explained earlier how an expiring like Jason Terry is worth less than Budinger's two year deal ($5.85 mil contract, $1.5 mil expected production = -$4.35 contract... Budinger would produce more than $5.65 production in two years on his $10 mil deal). Moreover, Terry wouldn't give MIN even $1.5 mil in production next year, and they don't have tactical value to cap space next year. however, an expiring guy like Terry may have more value to other teams who can do something with the cap space next year, and that could lend itself to a three-way.

2. A consolidation trade for a potential starter, or bench player - either with a negative value, 2 year contract. I came up with an Eric Gordon trade that most thought worked for NOP, CHI, and probably MIN.

So I wanted to throw it out to the board. What 2-year contracts out there fit the criteria of "unproductive, or low-production" or "overpaid potential starter or bench player" either on teams that could use more production for their money?

[165bows]

Gerald Wallace, but as I've posted earlier they likely aren't going to pay much of anything to move him, at least until next summer.

They've taken on Wallace, Joel Anthony and Marcus Thornton in salary dumps over the last year and a half, and not really changing gears until next offseason I'd imagine.

[jbk1234]

You are really talking about three buckets of assets: (1) Brewer and Martin (slightly positive trade value); (2) Budinger (negative trade value unless he stays healthy and shows something); and (3) Barea (negative trade value period).

I think your approaches need to take those values into account.

[shrink]

You are really talking about three buckets of assets: (1) Brewer and Martin (slightly positive trade value); (2) Budinger (negative trade value unless he stays healthy and shows something); and (3) Barea (negative trade value period).

I think your approaches need to take those values into account.

Everyone has been focusing on assigning their own expected production and value to the MIN assets, and very few are taking an approach coming up with pieces that are worth more to MIN than other teams (or at least, don't hurt MIN as bad).

That's why I started this thread - to lay out a description of what pieces MIN could accept that would help another team, and see if that description led anyone to any realistic ideas.

[Xman]

Barea - value is as a 4.5 expiring only
KMart - 3 years at $7mil per leaves him at slight positive value
Budinger - 2 years at $5 mil per. Most teams will not want him - trick will be finding a team with a need for his shooting off the bench.
Brewer - 2 years at $4.8 mil per. slight positive value.

Detroit could use KMart, Budinger and Barea. But, has only $3 mil in cap space.
Possible: Jerebko 4.5, KCP 2.8 and JAnthony for KMart and Budinger. (works on trade checker)
Idea here would be that Minny gets a look at KCP on his rookie contract and Detroit gets win now players that it needs to contribute.
Then, try to flip Jerebko and Barea expirings.

The only other one I see is possibly NO.
Gordon 14.9, 15.5 and a cheap salary like Babbit for Barea, Budinger and KMart. $$ Works on espn.
That would be great for Minny to roll the dice on Gordon. NO would get a more consistent sg in KMart and some bench depth.

Maybe NY: A bargnani package.

[shrink]

Are there any other two-year deals out there that a team wishes were more productive?

[qianlong]

Look no further than Brooklyn. They have Johnson in the productive yet highly overpaid category. Williams is worse and in a longer contract, so i would dismiss him. And finally there is KG. As a player he is done, but he could be a mentor for younger players for a year, and would be a feel good story.

Barea and Budinger for KG.
Barea, Budinger, Brewer, Martin for Johnson.

[HartfordWhalers]

Look no further than Brooklyn. They have Johnson in the productive yet highly overpaid category. Williams is worse and in a longer contract, so i would dismiss him. And finally there is KG. As a player he is done, but he could be a mentor for younger players for a year, and would be a feel good story.

Barea and Budinger for KG.
Barea, Budinger, Brewer, Martin for Johnson.

Wait what?

[HartfordWhalers]

This also could be done in a three-way. I explained earlier how an expiring like Jason Terry is worth less than Budinger's two year deal ($5.85 mil contract, $1.5 mil expected production = -$4.35 contract... Budinger would produce more than $5.65 production in two years on his $10 mil deal). Moreover, Terry wouldn't give MIN even $1.5 mil in production next year, and they don't have tactical value to cap space next year. however, an expiring guy like Terry may have more value to other teams who can do something with the cap space next year, and that could lend itself to a three-way.

Unless a team really likes Buddinger, I think Terry has roughly equal (if not more) value. Sure you can do that math, but I would argue that there is an opportunity cost to having that space next season, and that lost opportunity cost is bigger than just the cost of the gap in your evaluated production. 5m next offseason could be a 5m production player locked in for 4 years, or help make a max offer, or is the difference between having to salary dump a first to get rid of a player and stay under the tax etc.

[sportscrazy]

J.J. Hickson, J.R. Smith and O.J. Mayo

[shrink]

This also could be done in a three-way. I explained earlier how an expiring like Jason Terry is worth less than Budinger's two year deal ($5.85 mil contract, $1.5 mil expected production = -$4.35 contract... Budinger would produce more than $5.65 production in two years on his $10 mil deal). Moreover, Terry wouldn't give MIN even $1.5 mil in production next year, and they don't have tactical value to cap space next year. however, an expiring guy like Terry may have more value to other teams who can do something with the cap space next year, and that could lend itself to a three-way.

Unless a team really likes Buddinger, I think Terry has roughly equal (if not more) value. Sure you can do that math, but I would argue that there is an opportunity cost to having that space next season, and that lost opportunity cost is bigger than just the cost of the gap in your evaluated production. 5m next offseason could be a 5m production player locked in for 4 years, or help make a max offer, or is the difference between having to salary dump a first to get rid of a player and stay under the tax etc.

No, there would be no new opportunity for MIN. Trading Budinger for an expiring doesn't take them under the cap next year, and they are far enough under the lux to use the MLE next year without making this trade.

This is why i mentioned a three-way deal.

[HartfordWhalers]

This also could be done in a three-way. I explained earlier how an expiring like Jason Terry is worth less than Budinger's two year deal ($5.85 mil contract, $1.5 mil expected production = -$4.35 contract... Budinger would produce more than $5.65 production in two years on his $10 mil deal). Moreover, Terry wouldn't give MIN even $1.5 mil in production next year, and they don't have tactical value to cap space next year. however, an expiring guy like Terry may have more value to other teams who can do something with the cap space next year, and that could lend itself to a three-way.

Unless a team really likes Buddinger, I think Terry has roughly equal (if not more) value. Sure you can do that math, but I would argue that there is an opportunity cost to having that space next season, and that lost opportunity cost is bigger than just the cost of the gap in your evaluated production. 5m next offseason could be a 5m production player locked in for 4 years, or help make a max offer, or is the difference between having to salary dump a first to get rid of a player and stay under the tax etc.

No, there would be no new opportunity for MIN. Trading Budinger for an expiring doesn't take them under the cap next year, and they are far enough under the lux to use the MLE next year without making this trade.

This is why i mentioned a three-way deal.

You said Terry was worth less. I disagree. The fact that Minnesota is one of the few teams that needs to do a little work to capitalize on that opportunity cost doesn't make it not there, and valued.

[HartfordWhalers]

J.J. Hickson, J.R. Smith and O.J. Mayo

Hickson is a good one for this.

Lets say he is 4m of production per over the next 2 years, and paid 11m, he would be 3m short. If Bareas is cut by an acquiring team, he is 4m short. In general Barea at his immediate -4m and gone would be worth (at least as much if not more than Hickson and his slow suck of -3m, that ties up your limited resources for more time.

(You can quibble those numbers or sub in other players with a similar dynamic, as they are not the argument)

[shrink]

Unless a team really likes Buddinger, I think Terry has roughly equal (if not more) value. Sure you can do that math, but I would argue that there is an opportunity cost to having that space next season, and that lost opportunity cost is bigger than just the cost of the gap in your evaluated production. 5m next offseason could be a 5m production player locked in for 4 years, or help make a max offer, or is the difference between having to salary dump a first to get rid of a player and stay under the tax etc.

No, there would be no new opportunity for MIN. Trading Budinger for an expiring doesn't take them under the cap next year, and they are far enough under the lux to use the MLE next year without making this trade.

This is why i mentioned a three-way deal.

You said Terry was worth less. I disagree. The fact that Minnesota is one of the few teams that needs to do a little work to capitalize on that opportunity cost doesn't make it not there, and valued.

I don't even think that is true.

Money spent in free agency should net you market value, almost by definition. Perhaps an argument could be made that it's even worse than market value, since a free agent takes the highest deal offered, i.e. - a bid 29 teams would not beat. A $5 mil productive free agent shouldn't be assumed to produce $6 mil a year.

So even if we say that a free agent is a net-zero, neither underpaid or overpaid, then it still doesn't make up for the big hit that a team takes this year, in the gap between Terry's production, and the $5.85 mil he bites into a team's payroll this year.

MIN would obviously not have an opportunity cost associated with an expiring. I also do not think you can just assume that some other team could take the payroll reduction next year, and sign someone under market to make up for the Terry gap this year. Expirings do not have some intrinsic value, but Terry's contract for this year is certainly a negative value. Is Budinger's worse, where a team wouldn't get around $5.65 mil in production over two years? I think most would doubt that.

[HartfordWhalers]

No, there would be no new opportunity for MIN. Trading Budinger for an expiring doesn't take them under the cap next year, and they are far enough under the lux to use the MLE next year without making this trade.

This is why i mentioned a three-way deal.

You said Terry was worth less. I disagree. The fact that Minnesota is one of the few teams that needs to do a little work to capitalize on that opportunity cost doesn't make it not there, and valued.

I don't even think that is true.

Money spent in free agency should net you market value, almost by definition. Perhaps an argument could be made that it's even worse than market value, since a free agent takes the highest deal offered, i.e. - a bid 29 teams would not beat. A $5 mil productive free agent shouldn't be assumed to produce $6 mil a year.

So even if we say that a free agent is a net-zero, neither underpaid or overpaid, then it still doesn't make up for the big hit that a team takes this year, in the gap between Terry's production, and the $5.85 mil he bites into a team's payroll this year.

MIN would obviously not have an opportunity cost associated with an expiring. I also do not think you can just assume that some other team could take the payroll reduction next year, and sign someone under market to make up for the Terry gap this year. Expirings do not have some intrinsic value, but Terry's contract for this year is certainly a negative value. Is Budinger's worse, where a team wouldn't get around $5.65 mil in production over two years? I think most would doubt that.

Lets say Buddinger gives 6m production. I'm suggesting that that is still worse (in general).

I understand you have the idea that your expected production value - actual contract = value, but I don't agree. I'm saying my problem with that premise, is that there is a clear option value of having an option to use the space better than being locked into using it poorly in the future.

If you said to most teams, what would you rather have:
4m wasted now or 2m wasted now, and 2m wasted later?***

Unless a team is in a very tight situation, imo most would rather rip the bandage off now, take the hit, and have a clear chance at better days later, than dragging the pain along.

Especially when we aren't talking about a 2m wasted block, but a 5m salary filling up space and rearranging what space you have left. You are losing flexibility in general, and that flexibility has some value. Teams like LAL, NYK, etc would rather have Nash and Bargs, than say Marvin Williams as they want that cap space for next year more than worrying about Marvin is only overpaid 2m a year for 2 years while Bargs is 7m overpaid.

This is why I think Barea is more valuable than Hickson, even though Hickson might be closer to fairly paid.



***(Stretch provision and the use of it is an example of a time when teams do the opposite. So far it has been used very rarely, and typically on small contracts, and when teams have to use it. Should prove interesting to see how this develops, as it forms a nice test.)

[QRich3]

^ I agree with that, a team like Houston will value Terry's expiring more than Bud's two year deal, even if Budinger has the chance of being more productive (it also has a chance of being an unproductive salary for an additional year). They didn't match Parsons because they thought it'd cut into their opportunities at free agency next year, they certainly aren't going to risk those chances for a Budinger/Ariza combo.

The Eric Gordon deal just makes too much sense for all parts, and if it hasn't happened yet, I doubt it will at this point. But that's the sort of package Wolves fans should be realistically expecting, a similar overpaid veteran contract with not much upside, but occupying one roster spot instead of the 3/4 that the Barea/Martin/Brewer/Budinger group do. None of those guys is gonna land you a positive asset, other than a token 2nd rounder or an underwhelming prospect with little chance to pan out (Thomas Robinson maybe?). Detroit sure as hell isn't giving up KCP for any of those guys, and them with Meeks injury are one of the few teams that can see good value in Martin's contract. They probably don't see anything in Budinger or Brewer that Butler and Singler can't give them.

Clippers have Matt Barnes salary at $3.4M (with only $1M guaranteed next year) that they would possibly trade for Brewer's production this year, but they're too close to the apron to add $1.3M more, and it doesn't do anything for the Wolves surplus of roster spots anyway.

Other than those teams, I don't see any of the Wolves' veterans moving the needle enough for any playoff team to give up anything of value for them.

[sportscrazy]

If Atlanta goes the rebuild route, does a Horford/Teague for Dieng/Rubio + assets/fillers have substance as the base to a deal?

[Smitty731]

The trade I like best for both sides is:

MIN gets: Eric Gordon and Austin Rivers

NO gets: J.J. Barea, Corey Brewer, and Kevin Martin

The Wolves would be able to play Wiggins at SF (his natural position to me) and start Gordon at SG. Gordon could provide shooting and scoring. Moving Martin and Brewer helps ease the logjam at the wing. They can still deal Budinger after this as well. And taking a flier on Rivers is fine too.

For the Pelicans, adding Brewer is great for them. He fills a need at SF. They would have the best defensive frontcourt in the league. Martin can either start or come off the bench. Either way he replaces some (some would say all!) of what you lose by trading Gordon. Barea is a throw in to make the math work, but I think he could be a decent backup PG for NO. If he's got it going, they play him. If he doesn't, he sits.

[shrink]

Gordon, Joe Johnson, Hickson, OJ Mayo, JR. Smith, Barnes

Any other two-year deals out there that are less productive or less valuable than the MIN pieces?

[Smitty731]

Gordon, Joe Johnson, Hickson, OJ Mayo, JR. Smith, Barnes

Any other two-year deals out there that are less productive or less valuable than the MIN pieces?

Raymond Felton
JaVale McGee
Tayshaun Prince
Courtney Lee (questionable on the less productive part maybe)
John Salmons
Austin Daye
Victor Claver
Kendrick Perkins
Nate Robinson
Marresse Speights
Steve Nash
Will Bynum
Gerald Wallace
Alan Anderson
Jason Richardson
Landry Fields
Chuck Hayes
Ersan Ilyasova (de facto two year deal. third year is only 400k guaranteed)
Aaron Gray
Cartier Martin
Joel Anthony
Garrett Temple

Those are just a bunch off the top of my head. I'm sure some are considered more valuable than Minnesota's pieces, but for the most part I don't think they are.