Couple Suns trades with ORL and CHI

Post #1 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:15 pm

First

Knight

for

Gibson

Bulls need another PG particularly one who is at least a threat from the outside. They have an extra PF to spare.
Suns get a veteran PF to teach their two lotto picks for a year and clear out Knight's money moving forward.

Then

Tucker

for

CJ Watson
2017 ORL 2nd
$1M cash (for Watson's gte next year)

Magic deal an expensive 3rd PG for a useful veteran combo forward and get out of the small gte Watson has next year.
Suns get a stopgap veteran PG in case Ulis isn't ready to be the full-time backup and get an asset for Tucker who's extraneous with the Dudley signing.

Laimbeer · Post #2 » by **Laimbeer** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:20 pm

Knight probably has a tad more value since he's locked up. Second one is ok.

Golabki · Post #3 » by **Golabki** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:22 pm

Seems too much for knight and too little for tucker

Post #4 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:23 pm

Laimbeer wrote:Knight probably has a tad more value since he's locked up. Second one is ok.

Depends on how one sees Knight as a player. If he's seen as a poor starter, good backup then geting Taj Gibson back for him is a pretty good get. If one thinks Knight is an average NBA starting guard then yeah him being locked up on that deal should make him worth more than Gibson. I like Knight more than most, but I don't think he's a top 20 PG and I tried to value him based on feedback I've seen here.

drosestruts · Post #5 » by **drosestruts** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:32 pm

I like Knight, but am weary of moving Gibson. I know a lot of Bulls fans want to see us open up minutes for Bobby Portis after a promising Summer League, but I'm very much a "it's just summer league" kind of guy. Portis has a second year player, should be looking good against that level of competition.

I think it's very much a fair deal, I just view our current roster depth at point guard to be Rondo/Valentine/Canaan/Grant/Dinwiddie. We already have too many point guards, Valentine and Canaan are capable outside shooters.

So in the end, good value, just don't think the timing is right for the Bulls.

Post #6 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:38 pm

I really think that playing Dudley at the 3 is putting him in position to fail. He really should be playing solely stretch 4 (or at least, a majority of his minutes) in order for his speed and athleticism to be an advantage, not a liability, much like Luol Deng. To me, then adding a pure 4 in Gibson really just compounds that logjam with Dudley, Gibson, Chriss, and Bender all really being sole 4's.

Post #7 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:41 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:I really think that playing Dudley at the 3 is putting him in position to fail. He really should be playing solely stretch 4 (or at least, a majority of his minutes) in order for his speed and athleticism to be an advantage, not a liability, much like Luol Deng. To me, then adding a pure 4 in Gibson really just compounds that logjam with Dudley, Gibson, Chriss, and Bender all really being sole 4's.

Yeah this is probably a good point. I could argue that Gibson and Bender probably could and would (and should?) play some 5, but I'd agree Dudley should be used primarily as a 4.

Post #8 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:45 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:I really think that playing Dudley at the 3 is putting him in position to fail. He really should be playing solely stretch 4 (or at least, a majority of his minutes) in order for his speed and athleticism to be an advantage, not a liability, much like Luol Deng. To me, then adding a pure 4 in Gibson really just compounds that logjam with Dudley, Gibson, Chriss, and Bender all really being sole 4's.

Yeah this is probably a good point. I could argue that Gibson and Bender probably could and would (and should?) play some 5, but I'd agree Dudley should be used primarily as a 4.

Yeah. If you can get Gibson and Bender in at the 5 for solid minutes, then it's a much more palatable deal. But, to do so, now you have to deal either Len or Chandler. I'm sure there's takers for Len (though, you likely still want to see what Alex can do), but Chandler? Methinks not so many.

Skin · Post #9 » by **Skin** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:05 pm

ORL doesn't really have minutes for Tucker. If Watson is healthy, he can provide 3 pt shooting at our #1 position that's weak at 3 pt shooting. The other thing is Watson knows his role is now to be 3rd string PG. Is Tucker going to be a good soldier being buried on the bench too? Lastly, I don't get the feeling that there's a big concern over Watson's contract and that the Magic feel trapped in it. Like you mentioned, they can get out of it in the summer and only have to pay him $1M. He's not cheap for a 3rd string, but he's good depth for a 3rd string. If there's a stretch 4 bench type player, that might be a good trade idea for Watson.

Post #10 » by **Smitty731** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:15 pm

I don't like adding yet another big to the Suns mix. They already have enough guys who can play PF/C minutes. Gibson just makes that messier. Value wise it is fair, but fit is off for Phoenix.

The second one is great value for Orlando, but the wing is getting a little full for them. They want to make sure Fournier, Gordon, Hezonja, and Green have plenty of minutes and still find some for Wilcox (who they are increasingly excited about) and Meeks, if and when he gets back.

As Skin said, Watson can be the 3rd PG and give them a little shooting when called upon. He's overpaid for that role, but he fills a little more of a need.

So for me, Tucker is more valuable than Watson. Actually make that way more valuable. But I think he causes things to get too muddled up. And Orlando would then have to go find a 3rd PG too.