NBA Trade Thread #13

[sco]

They get shutdown because the other team is getting robbed 99 percent of the time.

Incorrect. if it was just a matter of price, that's negotiable. It's rarely about the price. You are right in that a lot of people in here have very strong opinions on what they think other teams will do. For some reason. It's fair for AK to lowball Giddey with an offer, but he should open with the highest offer possible when trading for a free agent, lmao!

Give me an example of the other team getting robbed. Two trades were Coby White for Derek Lively or Daniel Gafford, with a pick coming with Gafford. That's Dallas getting robbed? Vucevic for Jalen Green is Phoenix getting robbed? They save like $30 mill real money. Same with Vucevic for Simons. Celtics are not getting robbed.

I specifically put trades I think are in the ballpark of value and people arrogantly assume they know what other teams are looking for, what they will accept, and there is no negotiation possible. It's opinion vs opinion on what a team will accept. Sure any trade proposal you put up, if you ever do, there will be someone somewhere who says, "The other team will never do it!".

The question is usually "Should the Bulls do the trade?", not will the other team accept the proposed offer. Offers are flexible.

I gotta say that 99% of the trades proposed on this site are uneven one way or another. But the fun on this thread is taking the for or against position and arguing our position...and I like that...that's why I come here. The flipside is when someone posts one that faces disagreement, they can't view the debate as anything more that people taking a position and having fun. We all know that none of these are getting done and that there is no right answer. If someone proposed the Luca/AD trade here, it would have gotten shut down immediately.

All good. Keep 'em coming.

[Jstock12]

All good. Keep 'em coming.

I used to scoff at the absolutely delusional trade ideas by the Lakers fans. But after last trade deadline, it really feels like anything is possible.

[Infinity2152]

Coby for Gafford and a pick is robbery, Coby is due a new contract and has a skill-set that is more common in the league.

Gafford has a good deal and has a skill-set that is more desirable in a more valued position.

How much do you want to bet Coby's next contract is bigger than Gafford's? The amount of money teams pay shows how much a player is valued. Like there aren't a lot of athletic bigs who can't shoot? Are you kidding me? Gafford's so desired, he was on his third team by 25.

Mavs have Anthony Davis, Derrick Lively, Daniel Gafford, Cooper Flagg, and PJ Washington as their bigs. Now where is their 20 PTs/gm 37% 3pt SG? Since it's so common. They have at least 3 bigs likely as good or better than Gafford. He'll be lucky to see 20 minutes a game without one of their bigs getting traded.

For some reason, 3pt shooting 18+ pt scoring guards always get paid. Gafford type players do not, at least not nearly as often. But good to see you have your thumb on what the league values, even if it's not reflected in contracts. Minutes also reflect value, Gafford's played over 22 minutes 1 year in his career, a whopping 24.5.

Sure, the ability to shoot is more common. That's because players who can't shoot usually find their way out of the league. Plus pretty sure I proposed the deal before Gafford got his new contract, and pushed for it more after. He was expiring too, but he took an extension for 3yrs/$54 mill. He averaged 21.5 minutes last year, and that's with Lively only playing 36 games, AD wasn't there half the year, and Flagg wasn't on the team. So in your opinion, a 20 minute per game guy getting almost $20 mill/yr is a good deal. OK.

Coby's also younger than Gafford. There's still potential upside.

Thanks. This is exactly what I was talking about a person being so certain of their valuations of players, and so certain they know how other teams value BOTH players, that they argue why it's bad for Dallas instead of the actual question: "Should the Bulls do it?". Whether Dallas would do it wasn't even the question. If you don't want to contribute to the actual answer, because you think it's impossible, cool. Generally it's people who never actually propose trades, just spend time downing other's trade ideas. It's literally all hypothetical. Your opinions of player values is YOUR opinion. Not every team in the league's opinion. Would be more relevant if answering the question actually asked.

AD doesn't like playing the 5.
Flagg is a 3/4.

Washington is a 4.

Lively is the only one that limits Gafford's minutes.

Coby will probably get more and instantly become a bad contract.

Who cares what AD likes, he's played the 5 half his career. Dallas also didn't have Cooper Flagg when they traded for him. Plans change. Don't think they asked his permission before they traded for him anyway. They don't care.


Flagg has been a 4 for years. Because you play the 3 because you have too many bigs does not make you a 3. He's a 4. Matas is a 4. They may play 3, but they're 4's.

How can Lively be the only one that limits Gafford's minutes. If by your logic AD is playing the 4, of course Flagg and Washington likely play a ton of minutes there. AD will HAVE to play 5 at times.

Also by your logic, Klay Thompson was starting at the 3.

Explain how Gafford gets more than 22 minutes, when all he got was 22 minutes with Lively out the whole season, Flagg not on the roster, and AD not their half the season? Has he ever gotten more minutes than Washington? AD? Even Lively? He literally averaged less minutes than Lively. Already.

Your admiration of Gafford is not reflected in the fact that he is on his third team by 25, never plays starting minutes, and played less minutes already than a second year player in the same position. All these guys already play more minutes than him, now add Flagg. Who will be forced to play SF some to accommodate the overabundance of bigs.

So predict this $18 mill, valuable players minutes next season if you dare. Put a number on it. Then put a number on Coby's minutes.

[Infinity2152]

They get shutdown because the other team is getting robbed 99 percent of the time.

Incorrect. if it was just a matter of price, that's negotiable. It's rarely about the price. You are right in that a lot of people in here have very strong opinions on what they think other teams will do. For some reason. It's fair for AK to lowball Giddey with an offer, but he should open with the highest offer possible when trading for a free agent, lmao!

Give me an example of the other team getting robbed. Two trades were Coby White for Derek Lively or Daniel Gafford, with a pick coming with Gafford. That's Dallas getting robbed? Vucevic for Jalen Green is Phoenix getting robbed? They save like $30 mill real money. Same with Vucevic for Simons. Celtics are not getting robbed.

I specifically put trades I think are in the ballpark of value and people arrogantly assume they know what other teams are looking for, what they will accept, and there is no negotiation possible. It's opinion vs opinion on what a team will accept. Sure any trade proposal you put up, if you ever do, there will be someone somewhere who says, "The other team will never do it!".

The question is usually "Should the Bulls do the trade?", not will the other team accept the proposed offer. Offers are flexible.

I gotta say that 99% of the trades proposed on this site are uneven one way or another. But the fun on this thread is taking the for or against position and arguing our position...and I like that...that's why I come here. The flipside is when someone posts one that faces disagreement, they can't view the debate as anything more that people taking a position and having fun. We all know that none of these are getting done and that there is no right answer. If someone proposed the Luca/AD trade here, it would have gotten shut down immediately.

All good. Keep 'em coming.

Here's the thing. Wouldn't damn near every single trade ever proposed in the history of ever likely look uneven to SOMEBODY? Are you saying people are purposefully posting uneven trades? Or do you think it's that people value the trade pieces differently? For instance for some, first round picks are the Holy Grail. Some don't care much about future, protected firsts. So if I or most people post trades in here, it's because we think they're basically even, or close enough the other team will consider it. I've never seen Ja Morant for Ayo. Jayson Tatum for Patrick Williams.

It's insulting when you ask "Should the Bulls do this?" and the response is "Your deal is so uneven the other team won't so why discuss should the Bulls do it?". First, didn't ask for your opinion on value for the Mavs, etc. Second why is your opinion of their value the law, and I can't use my opinion in my hypothetical? How would I use your value judgement in my trade proposal? Not you personally, in general.

Pretty much all straight player trades are uneven anyway, why picks with various degrees of protection plus additional players get included in so many deals. If I ever propose we get Anthony Edwards for Coby White, bash away. Notice how everyone who bashes these trades ARE CERTAIN other teams will agree 100% with them, they use stupid superlatives like, "They'll never do that." It's usually people who post zero trade ideas themselves. They can dish it out but don't want to take it. Don't think I've seen a single trade proposal for any player over $15-$20 mill. Ball trade was bashed, lol, and the same people wanted him gone. How about propose some moves of their own, so we can tear those apart?

Only move doesn't get bashed: Send guys out for draft picks, even if it's bad money. Guess that's safe, nobody can really criticize your decision, who knows how any random, protected pick turns out. Can always say "But we can draft a star in 2 years with that pick!"

Lot of hypocrites in here. Vucevic sucks so bad, we should pay him to leave, but damn taking Anfernee Simons expiring contract instead of spending money and getting Zach back. Crying for Ball to be traded every year, when he's traded "That's all we got back?". A young 3 and D wing vet on a reasonable controlled contract, boo hoo. Trade an oft injured backup 32 year old Caruso you signed for $10 mill for a 21 year old starter, "Damn AK, you couldn't get a first too?!" Now it's time to pay that guy, "We want you back, we just don't really want to pay you." Lot of guys just want to be negative all the time.

[kodo]

Look at the starting roster of each NBA team. Which teams have a roster where there is not at least one, maybe two players in their starting lineup with easily identifiable flaws? I think it's impossible to build a team WITHOUT flawed players in today's NBA, not with. A team full of starters without obvious flaws might be last year's Celtics, how much did that team cost again? If they're putting up numbers, and don't show flaws, they're getting maxed. Can't build a team with all max players.

Part of why this Giddey debate doesn't make a lot of sense. The logic is Giddey doesn't deserve $30 mill because he' not a great three point shooter, or great defender. Giddey as a great shooter OR great defender gets a rookie max contract, outside this crazy market. Maybe even with it. Imo.

Maybe this is why almost every trade idea gets shot down in here, guys are waiting for perfect players at discount prices in a competitive market. I've probably proposed 8-10 trades, Jaylen Brown, Jrue Holiday, Jimmy Butler, Desmond Bane, Zion Williamson, Kevin Durant, Daniel Gafford, Derek Lively off top. All are better than the guys we currently have in the position, most by a lot. This players too old, this player's hurt too often, this player cost too much. Those are just the non-basketball flaws. How do we add a player without flaws outside a super lucky draft or a max contract?

+1. The entire team of 2-way players has no chance of happening for the cheapest team in the league. Boston was projected to have a $500M payroll before they blew it up this summer. OKC just paid $182 for 3 guys long term, and are paying $50m now for two low minute roleplayers. Bulls are standing firm on paying the guy who they are calling their future, $20M.

The reality of the Bulls having to be one of the cheapest teams in the league is we're going to have to do it with one way guys, get a bunch of non-elite players who are good at their one thing and try to win a round or two in the playoffs as our ceiling. Not exciting I know, but it's the reality of this ownership group combined with this front office.

You can be cheap and still have great talent, look at the Spurs. But the Bulls are actively avoiding drafting high or gaining more picks. So here we are.

[jnrjr79]

Look at the starting roster of each NBA team. Which teams have a roster where there is not at least one, maybe two players in their starting lineup with easily identifiable flaws? I think it's impossible to build a team WITHOUT flawed players in today's NBA, not with. A team full of starters without obvious flaws might be last year's Celtics, how much did that team cost again? If they're putting up numbers, and don't show flaws, they're getting maxed. Can't build a team with all max players.

Part of why this Giddey debate doesn't make a lot of sense. The logic is Giddey doesn't deserve $30 mill because he' not a great three point shooter, or great defender. Giddey as a great shooter OR great defender gets a rookie max contract, outside this crazy market. Maybe even with it. Imo.

Maybe this is why almost every trade idea gets shot down in here, guys are waiting for perfect players at discount prices in a competitive market. I've probably proposed 8-10 trades, Jaylen Brown, Jrue Holiday, Jimmy Butler, Desmond Bane, Zion Williamson, Kevin Durant, Daniel Gafford, Derek Lively off top. All are better than the guys we currently have in the position, most by a lot. This players too old, this player's hurt too often, this player cost too much. Those are just the non-basketball flaws. How do we add a player without flaws outside a super lucky draft or a max contract?

+1. The entire team of 2-way players has no chance of happening for the cheapest team in the league. Boston was projected to have a $500M payroll before they blew it up this summer. OKC just paid $182 for 3 guys long term, and are paying $50m now for two low minute roleplayers. Bulls are standing firm on paying the guy who they are calling their future, $20M.

The reality of the Bulls having to be one of the cheapest teams in the league is we're going to have to do it with one way guys, get a bunch of non-elite players who are good at their one thing and try to win a round or two in the playoffs as our ceiling. Not exciting I know, but it's the reality of this ownership group combined with this front office.

You can be cheap and still have great talent, look at the Spurs. But the Bulls are actively avoiding drafting high or gaining more picks. So here we are.

The bolded part isn’t quite true, though. Those extensions don’t kick in for a while and the low minute role players will be off the books by the time all the extensions kick in, which is presumably part of OKC’s thinking here.

I agree with the broader point that the Bulls’ reluctance to spend could have long-term consequences though.