"Lose a trade, help the team?"

[kulaz3000]

Seems like this thread just turned into another trade idea thread..

[Cliff Levingston]

Seems like this thread just turned into another trade idea thread..

Cliff Levingston has posted these idea before.

The first one (Wallace for Rose + James) is certainly losing a trade. The second one (Nocioni for Miller) is a big win for the Bulls, ICLO.

So yea, Cliff Levingston would lose a trade to help the team. However, the only way we can lose a trade (from a talent standpoint) and help the team at once would be to trade either Nocioni or Wallace for (principally) salary relief and a serviceable 2. Trading most anyone else of importance with any kind of value and losing that trade would likely lead to hurting the team (like trading Joe Smith for salary relief).

[kulaz3000]

-= original quote snipped =-


Cliff Levingston has posted these idea before.

The first one (Wallace for Rose + James) is certainly losing a trade. The second one (Nocioni for Miller) is a big win for the Bulls, ICLO.

So yea, Cliff Levingston would lose a trade to help the team. However, the only way we can lose a trade (from a talent standpoint) and help the team at once would be to trade either Nocioni or Wallace for (principally) salary relief and a serviceable 2. Trading most anyone else of importance with any kind of value and losing that trade would likely lead to hurting the team (like trading Joe Smith for salary relief).

Yeah, i've read your idea about trading Wallace for those two chumps before. But the thing is, Wallace still contributes to our team, he is just getting too many mintues. By dumping Wallace for Rose and James, we're pratically getting nothing that helps us in return. So its practically just waiving Wallace for nothing. Rose can still score, but he is very short and unathletic, and James is well.. ergh.

So even if we're going to lose out in a trade i may as well get something of value in return instead of NOTHING. If it means adding on a young piece as well, then so be it. But just dumping a player who can still make a difference for two players that is assured to give nothing, is a little ludicris and if Paxson's head is screwed on straight he would never do that.

Though, i do believe in some instances getting less in return is at times a benefical to the overall team, in my most favourite case of the A.D and Rose trade. I thought we got killed in that trade, but A.D just brought along a leadership skill that ever since his depature has not been replaced. But i don't see why we have to always been one recieving the lesser talent in a trade, id like to be the team that swindles another team for once.

[Cliff Levingston]

Yeah, i've read your idea about trading Wallace for those two chumps before. But the thing is, Wallace still contributes to our team, he is just getting too many mintues. By dumping Wallace for Rose and James, we're pratically getting nothing that helps us in return. So its practically just waiving Wallace for nothing. Rose can still score, but he is very short and unathletic, and James is well.. ergh.

So even if we're going to lose out in a trade i may as well get something of value in return instead of NOTHING. If it means adding on a young piece as well, then so be it. But just dumping a player who can still make a difference for two players that is assured to give nothing, is a little ludicris and if Paxson's head is screwed on straight he would never do that.

Cliff Levingston disagrees that we're getting nothing in return:

1. Cap savings which can be applied to more useful assets in the future.
2. An big contract that expires next season which can be used in a possible trade.
3. Tighter rotation that will develop our youth and outperform the current one.

Ben Wallace had a 14.7 PER last year and is posting a 12.15 PER this year; how is that "contributing?" Comparatively, Noah is posting a 19.14, Gray is posting a 12.66 and Thomas is posting a 13.87; all better than Wallace. It's reasonable to expect that Wallace's minutes replaced by any combination of Noah, Thomas and Wallace would result in better production than what Wallace is currently giving us.

So no, we're not directly gaining anything as a result of the trade, but we're indirectly gaining a lot. But you can sleep easy kulaz cause there's less than a 0% chance of this happening in reality.

[theanimal23]

Joe Smith and Chris Duhon for Andre Miller. The thing is, I think Miller can be had for some expirings by a team such as Miami.

He gives us size to defend either guard position, and is a solid creator at PG. Somethign we need. Plus he is better offensively than Duhon. It also clears up some playing room up front. Joe Smith was well appreciated in Philly. I think Philly can find better offers.

[jeremy1215]

Bonzi Wells would be a great fit for this team, he would give us some post scoring and he is big enough so Hinrich could guard the point.

[Clint Eastwood]

Joe Smith and Chris Duhon for Andre Miller. The thing is, I think Miller can be had for some expirings by a team such as Miami.

He gives us size to defend either guard position, and is a solid creator at PG. Somethign we need. Plus he is better offensively than Duhon. It also clears up some playing room up front. Joe Smith was well appreciated in Philly. I think Philly can find better offers.

sincerely doubt philly does this deal. i do it in a second and then trade hinrich in some package for gasol if humanly possible.

gasol
wallace/TT or noah whoever left after gasol trade
deng
gordon
miller

[Mr. Tibbs]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yeah, i've read your idea about trading Wallace for those two chumps before. But the thing is, Wallace still contributes to our team, he is just getting too many mintues. By dumping Wallace for Rose and James, we're pratically getting nothing that helps us in return. So its practically just waiving Wallace for nothing. Rose can still score, but he is very short and unathletic, and James is well.. ergh.

So even if we're going to lose out in a trade i may as well get something of value in return instead of NOTHING. If it means adding on a young piece as well, then so be it. But just dumping a player who can still make a difference for two players that is assured to give nothing, is a little ludicris and if Paxson's head is screwed on straight he would never do that.

Though, i do believe in some instances getting less in return is at times a benefical to the overall team, in my most favourite case of the A.D and Rose trade. I thought we got killed in that trade, but A.D just brought along a leadership skill that ever since his depature has not been replaced. But i don't see why we have to always been one recieving the lesser talent in a trade, id like to be the team that swindles another team for once.

i dn i'd say it's like getting malik rose jerome james joakim noah aaron gray and tyrus thomas