Bos/Sac/Utah/Minny Way too big

giberish · Post #1 » by **giberish** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 9:10 pm

Obviously 4-team deals are rare, and never have this many major players moving around but IMO it does make some sense for all the teams involved.

Boston trades: Brown/Amir/Zeller/2017 BK/Bos 1st/2018 BK 1st for Hayward/Favors/Withey

Boston cashes in to add two more top players. It's assumed they're confident in resigning both guys. Thomas/Smart/Bradley/Hayward/Crowder/Favors/Horford is a really strong top-7 guys to go forward with.

Utah trades: Hayward/Favors/Withey for Wiggins/Dieng/Zeller

Utah clears up their FA uncertainty by dealing Favors and Hayward together, getting back the younger, high-upside Wiggins to replace Hayward and Dieng as a Favors fill-in.

Minny trades: Wiggins/Dieng/Rush for Cousins/Gay/Casspi

Minny trades Wiggins to get a stud big with some veteran wing replacements. This is a win-now push for a team that's been in the lottery way too long.

Sacramento trades: Cousins/Gay/Casspi for Amir/Brown/Rush/2017 BK/Bos 1st /2018 BK 1st

Sacramento trades Cousins (with Gay who's likely leaving next summer anyway) for a major haul - Brown + 2 Nets 1sts.

I imagine there'd be some debate on the Nets picks. Sac clearly gets one, but do they get both, or does the 2018 pick go to Minny, Utah or stay in Boston?

Also, how well do Cousins and Favors work together. They seem to have enough quickness and range between them to play together, but it's a risk that would need to work out quickly (though it's not clear that Wiggins and Lavine work that well together either).

Finally, there's the question of how much trade value the major pieces - particularly Wiggins - have.

jpengland · Post #2 » by **jpengland** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 9:12 pm

Utah need a pretty hefty incentive there. Other than that, surprisingly strong.

GopherIt! · Post #3 » by **GopherIt!** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 9:15 pm

Minny does not swap Wiggins for Cousins.

Post #4 » by **SmartWentCrazy** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 9:21 pm

If Boston is paying the return for Cousins/Gay/Casspi, I'm pretty sure they'd just keep them. A top 7 of IT/Smart/AB/Crowder/Horford/Cousins/Gay beats IT/Smart/AB/Crowder/Horford/Favors/Hayward, IMO.

longfellow44 · Post #5 » by **longfellow44** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 9:38 pm

I'm pretty sure the kings just keep the package from minny. Maybe try to get Rubio as well. We can include Collison if necessary

Zaschrona · Post #6 » by **Zaschrona** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 9:45 pm

Easy pass for Boston. We can sign Hayward for free if he decides to play here. And BKN pick > Favors, especially with his current injury.

YourBuddy · Post #7 » by **YourBuddy** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 10:36 pm

You are going to need to find a different team willing to risk this much for a guy who can opt out after another season. It won't be the Wolves.

Daddy 801 · Post #8 » by **Daddy 801** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 11:31 pm

Utah says no I believe.

rpa · Post #9 » by **rpa** » Fri Dec 2, 2016 11:59 pm

Value seems good, but direction is off for both Minnesota and Boston. Also not convinced Utah would do it, but I can see the argument (pair Wiggins with Gobert et al).

Why would Boston rather have Hayward/Favors/Whithey instead of Cousins/Casspi/Gay? Cousins is the best player there--by a mile--and I'd argue he fits their team better than Favors or Hayward.

Why would Minnesota take the chance that they force either Cousins or Towns to play out of position? Why trade their best wing player for such a gamble in a league that values backcourt players?

Daddy 801 · Post #10 » by **Daddy 801** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 12:13 am

rpa wrote:Value seems good, but direction is off for both Minnesota and Boston. Also not convinced Utah would do it, but I can see the argument (pair Wiggins with Gobert et al).

Why would Boston rather have Hayward/Favors/Whithey instead of Cousins/Casspi/Gay? Cousins is the best player there--by a mile--and I'd argue he fits their team better than Favors or Hayward.

Why would Minnesota take the chance that they force either Cousins or Towns to play out of position? Why trade their best wing player for such a gamble in a league that values backcourt players?

In a vacuum Cousins is absolutely the best player. In the real world with personalities I'm not sure I would rather have him over Hayward as a GM. Cousins could win you a championship or lose you your job.

mudsak · Post #11 » by **mudsak** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 4:07 am

That's actually a pretty damn Interesting trade proposal. Given certain circumstances (timing with contracts, etc...) i can see each of these teams at least having the motivation to consider this.

I'd say Utah still really needs to see this team they've built actually have a shot to play together... for that reason I think they'll be reluctant to make any big moves.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

rugbyrugger23 · Post #12 » by **rugbyrugger23** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 5:05 am

Wolves should want no part of Cousins.

MrPerfect1 · Post #13 » by **MrPerfect1** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 6:21 am

I think Utah gets destroyed in this deal. After many years, Utah finally has built a solid team and now they blow it up before seeing how it does? I think Utah does not even consider the offer unless Hayward has secretly told them he is definitely leaving.

Osirus89 · Post #14 » by **Osirus89** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 8:08 am

There is NO way Boston gets to keep every single one of their core players. One of bradley, crowder, smart, or thomas has to go. They can keep the 2018 BKN pick, but they are losing one of those guys. They aren't losing anyone of consequence in the trade and they get back Hayward and Favors. If Favors injury issues ever subside, that team could do damage.

c3j3h · Post #15 » by **c3j3h** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 9:12 am

So the Kings are trading away the best player, and aren't getting any of the next 4 best players in return? Why would the Kings do that?

That haul isn't enough for Boogie alone, let alone Boogie+Casspi+Rudy Gay

Winglish · Post #16 » by **Winglish** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 3:01 pm

So Utah trades 2 of their 3 best players for Wiggins and Dieng?

No. Just no. We will re-sign both Hayward and Favors by trading Alec Burks after he comes back from injury and is playing and people remember what he can do.

Sent from my SM-N900T using RealGM mobile app

Post #17 » by **jazzfan1971** » Sat Dec 3, 2016 7:20 pm

Jazz say no. The idea isn't terrible, Jazz could use a 2 for 1 deal. But, Wiggins is neither good enough, nor locked up long enough, to make this attractive for the Jazz.

babyjax13 · Post #18 » by **babyjax13** » Sun Dec 4, 2016 1:44 am

jazzfan1971 wrote:Jazz say no. The idea isn't terrible, Jazz could use a 2 for 1 deal. But, Wiggins is neither good enough, nor locked up long enough, to make this attractive for the Jazz.

He'd be an RFA, so I don't see the locked up long enough argument. I don't hate it, Wiggins is good, Dieng is good...but Hayward and Favors are both better players right now, and Dieng is in the same stage of his growth curve as them so we are really just hoping that in two years Wiggins has aged well enough with our core to be better than our core now...and I don't see he alone making up for the difference between Dieng and Favors, and I'm not convinced that he actually becomes better than Gordon (though it certainly isn't unplausible). I wished we would have traded Favors for that pick when it was reportedly an option. I think we'd have to get a better fit at power forward to make this work. Zeller isn't really doing much for us, and there is certainly a value gap if we think we can/will retain both Hayward/Favors (and I see no reason why we wouldn't).

LeCalinou · Post #19 » by **LeCalinou** » Sun Dec 4, 2016 11:45 am

giberish wrote:Obviously 4-team deals are rare, and never have this many major players moving around but IMO it does make some sense for all the teams involved.

Boston trades: Brown/Amir/Zeller/2017 BK/Bos 1st/2018 BK 1st for Hayward/Favors/Withey

Boston cashes in to add two more top players. It's assumed they're confident in resigning both guys. Thomas/Smart/Bradley/Hayward/Crowder/Favors/Horford is a really strong top-7 guys to go forward with.

Utah trades: Hayward/Favors/Withey for Wiggins/Dieng/Zeller

Utah clears up their FA uncertainty by dealing Favors and Hayward together, getting back the younger, high-upside Wiggins to replace Hayward and Dieng as a Favors fill-in.

Minny trades: Wiggins/Dieng/Rush for Cousins/Gay/Casspi

Minny trades Wiggins to get a stud big with some veteran wing replacements. This is a win-now push for a team that's been in the lottery way too long.

Sacramento trades: Cousins/Gay/Casspi for Amir/Brown/Rush/2017 BK/Bos 1st /2018 BK 1st

Sacramento trades Cousins (with Gay who's likely leaving next summer anyway) for a major haul - Brown + 2 Nets 1sts.

I imagine there'd be some debate on the Nets picks. Sac clearly gets one, but do they get both, or does the 2018 pick go to Minny, Utah or stay in Boston?

Also, how well do Cousins and Favors work together. They seem to have enough quickness and range between them to play together, but it's a risk that would need to work out quickly (though it's not clear that Wiggins and Lavine work that well together either).

Pretty good proposal. The team giving up the most talent is Sacramento, but getting instant cap relief (Amir Johnson), turning Gay into anything valuable for their future, and getting a very good prospect (Brown) + 3 draft picks next year is a pretty decent haul.

Boston would get a talent upgrade, with Favors and Hayward, which seem to be good fits with their system. Isaiah Thomas would be their best scorer, but not necessarily their best player (Hayward ?).

Minnesota would get a huge front court, with KAT and Cousins, but they're interchangeable, so there'd be some wiggle room. With better scorers / finishers on the team, Rubio as well becomes more valuable.

Utah ? They get away from some logjams (Lyles is primed to receive more pt), and contract uncertainty (Hayward + Favors), while getting a higher-upside player back, which they can afford to develop.
Finally, there's the question of how much trade value the major pieces - particularly Wiggins - have.

shrink · Post #20 » by **shrink** » Sun Dec 4, 2016 4:59 pm

giberish wrote:Utah trades: Hayward/Favors/Withey for Wiggins/Dieng/Zeller

Utah clears up their FA uncertainty by dealing Favors and Hayward together, getting back the younger, high-upside Wiggins to replace Hayward and Dieng as a Favors fill-in..

I just wanted to say, I find this very interesting as a two-team swap between Utah and Minnesota.

For Utah, as you stated, it depends on what you think Wiggins will become. Hayward and Favors are too very good NBA players, and that is a lot to give up. However, Wiggins has the opportunity to be a superstar. Remember when he was drafted, and his length and athleticism projected him as a great defender and rebounder, that might develop a little scoring? Dieng is on a reasonable deal (better than 2016 free agents!), and his strengths (catapult 15-18 footer, general game, continued improvement, some PnR defense) and weaknesses (can't defend the rim) wouldn't look too bad next to Gobert. This also fixes UTA's money issues. On Dec 14th, MIN could toss in the expiring Rush and Jordan Hill to deal with Dieng's poison pill, but it still leaves the Jazz with a $10 mil TPE to use to add talent before this year's trade deadline.

A general rule for a lottery team is that you should never trade a potential superstar, but in this case, the fit for MIN would be tremendous. Favors game compliments Towns, and allows him to play stretch-center, where he can maximize his development. Hayward is a fantastic player in all aspects of the game, but MIN could especially use his veteran presence to settle them down. There are questions about future overlap of Wiggins and LaVine, so MIN could start Rubio/LaVine/Hayward/Favors/Towns .. that's a tremendous line up. I think Utah's package is less risky than the more talented Cousins. Finally, while Thibs built for cap space in 2017 and 2018, the Wolves poor record thus far may keep good free agents away.

Both teams could say no here, which often happens when you make a deal with players of this caliber. But I think it's very interesting, and I wonder if it could be developed?