RealGM

Multiple rules in question here. Could the Pistons sign and trade Monroe, w/ the extra bird rights year on the deal, to Atlanta for Brooklyn's 1st rd. Draft pick?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

GooseDiddy wrote:Multiple rules in question here. Could the Pistons sign and trade Monroe, w/ the extra bird rights year on the deal, to Atlanta for Brooklyn's 1st rd. Draft pick?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

No

/thread

DetroitSho wrote:

GooseDiddy wrote:Multiple rules in question here. Could the Pistons sign and trade Monroe, w/ the extra bird rights year on the deal, to Atlanta for Brooklyn's 1st rd. Draft pick?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

No

/thread

why not? we'd need to add players for salary match, but i believe the "Birds Rights" is our only leverage in terms of getting moose to S&T as oppose to signing a 4 year

First: You cannot trade free agents on draft day. Moose is a FA therefore Detroit will not be able to trade him on draft day since he is unsigned.

Secondly: A player can only get the 5th year if he is signed with the team that owns his bird rights and plays for them. A player cannot be given the 5th year if they are to be signed and immediately traded. A Monroe sign and trade has always been fantasy. If we lose Monroe, we will get nothing in return.

Blkbrd671 wrote:

DetroitSho wrote:

GooseDiddy wrote:Multiple rules in question here. Could the Pistons sign and trade Monroe, w/ the extra bird rights year on the deal, to Atlanta for Brooklyn's 1st rd. Draft pick?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

No

/thread

why not? we'd need to add players for salary match, but i believe the "Birds Rights" is our only leverage in terms of getting moose to S&T as oppose to signing a 4 year

You needed an explanation for why a free agent couldn't be traded for a draft pick of the upcoming draft? Or maybe you were thinking he was referring to a later draft?

DetroitSho wrote:

Blkbrd671 wrote:

DetroitSho wrote:No

/thread

why not? we'd need to add players for salary match, but i believe the "Birds Rights" is our only leverage in terms of getting moose to S&T as oppose to signing a 4 year

You needed an explanation for why a free agent couldn't be traded for a draft pick of the upcoming draft? Or maybe you were thinking he was referring to a later draft?

aaaaaaahhhhh, YA AS DETROITSHO SAID. NOOOOOOOOO

I didn't put 2 and 2 together that the draft is 2 weeks before free agents can even sign, so that's my fault. I guess I was wondering if you can sign and trade players w/ there bird rights (which apparently you can't).


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

You can sign and trade Moose to a 4 yr deal and trade him for a 2016 draft pick.

princeofpalace wrote:If we lose Monroe, we will get nothing in return.

I don't think it's an absolute certainty this is the case. Just, any peculiar scenario where an S&T would be advantageous would probably yield you a kind of eye-twitch-inducing, pyrrhic-victory sort of return.

For example, I can see us being willing to send you Wallace+assets in a sign and trade for Monroe, where the assets have slightly more value than what it would have taken to just unload Wallace.

Sure, we could just sign Monroe outright, but doing a sign-and-trade is an easy and coherent way to simultaneously resolve Wallace, and saves us from having to renounce our large TPEs. I could see us paying a modest premium for that.

(Sullinger is the first name that comes to mind, from a fit perspective. Though I fear he's probably not perceived as having much value at all right now...)

SMTBSI wrote:

princeofpalace wrote:If we lose Monroe, we will get nothing in return.

I don't think it's an absolute certainty this is the case. Just, any peculiar scenario where an S&T would be advantageous would probably yield you a kind of eye-twitch-inducing, phyrric-victory sort of return.

For example, I can see us being willing to send you Wallace+assets in a sign and trade for Monroe, where the assets have slightly more value than what it would have taken to just unload Wallace.

Sure, we could just sign Monroe outright, but doing a sign-and-trade is an easy and coherent way to simultaneously resolve Wallace, and saves us from having to renounce our large TPEs. I could see us paying a modest premium for that.

I do believe that we are the only team that can sign moose to 5 years, so a S&T from Moose's perspective is probably more ideal.

(Sullinger is the first name that comes to mind, from a fit perspective. Though I fear he's probably not perceived as having much value at all right now...)

??? injured?

SMTBSI wrote:

princeofpalace wrote:If we lose Monroe, we will get nothing in return.

I don't think it's an absolute certainty this is the case. Just, any peculiar scenario where an S&T would be advantageous would probably yield you a kind of eye-twitch-inducing, phyrric-victory sort of return.

For example, I can see us being willing to send you Wallace+assets in a sign and trade for Monroe, where the assets have slightly more value than what it would have taken to just unload Wallace.

Sure, we could just sign Monroe outright, but doing a sign-and-trade is an easy and coherent way to simultaneously resolve Wallace, and saves us from having to renounce our large TPEs. I could see us paying a modest premium for that.

(Sullinger is the first name that comes to mind, from a fit perspective. Though I fear he's probably not perceived as having much value at all right now...)

The liklihood that Pistons take on any toxic assets to make it easier for another team to land Monroe is slim to none.

princeofpalace wrote:

SMTBSI wrote:

princeofpalace wrote:If we lose Monroe, we will get nothing in return.

I don't think it's an absolute certainty this is the case. Just, any peculiar scenario where an S&T would be advantageous would probably yield you a kind of eye-twitch-inducing, phyrric-victory sort of return.

For example, I can see us being willing to send you Wallace+assets in a sign and trade for Monroe, where the assets have slightly more value than what it would have taken to just unload Wallace.

Sure, we could just sign Monroe outright, but doing a sign-and-trade is an easy and coherent way to simultaneously resolve Wallace, and saves us from having to renounce our large TPEs. I could see us paying a modest premium for that.

(Sullinger is the first name that comes to mind, from a fit perspective. Though I fear he's probably not perceived as having much value at all right now...)

The liklihood that Pistons take on any toxic assets to make it easier for another team to land Monroe is slim to none.

Then ignore the last line about Sullinger. Make it hypothetical picks or whatever. I was trying to fudge around and come up with an unconventional idea that could be beneficial - not sure why you chose to see it as an attempt at shilling you.

And if the answer is that you don't see Detroit as still being in that phase of rebuilding where they'd take on bad contracts to acquire assets, that's fine.

SMTBSI wrote:
Then ignore the last line about Sullinger. Make it hypothetical picks or whatever. I was trying to fudge around and come up with an unconventional idea that could be beneficial - not sure why you chose to see it as an attempt at shilling you.

Taking on Wallace unless coupled with Bostons unprotected 2016 pick simply wouldn't make since considering Wallace is deadweight because the capspace created if we lose Monroe is more valuable than Wallace and a mediocre asset.

princeofpalace wrote:Taking on Wallace unless coupled with Bostons unprotected 2016 pick simply wouldn't make since considering Wallace is deadweight because the capspace created if we lose Monroe is more valuable than Wallace and a mediocre asset.

I didn't make a trade proposal. I didn't say "Wallace+Sullinger and nothing more". I was just thinking outloud, trying to generate discussion. Forget that I ever mentioned Sullinger.

What would be the actual going rate for someone to actually take Wallace? I have no idea - I'm bad at figuring that sort of thing. You conclude right off the bat that it can only be a "mediocre" asset. Ok....

I mean, I have a general impression that a near future unprotected pick from a bad team would be an overpay, but I can't say it with certainty. Guess I'll move on.

(The idea that you'd rather just have the capspace and roll the dice from there I certainly understand. I suppose I was sort of imagining the scenario where you've already struck out on most game-changing uses for that space.)

The idea was basically that you find a team looking to move a bad contract, then take whatever fair compensation would be for taking that contract off their hands if Monroe wasn't in the picture, and bump it up a bit since you're facilitating them getting Monroe.

The idea being that, assuming Monroe's departure is inevitable, you're trying to use his departure to manufacture a little more value than you would have gotten in that deal otherwise.

I think a Boston fan coming in and talking about sending Wallace made it look like I was putting the idea forward solely out of self-interest. I was just trying to think outside the box on a way to somehow manufacture value for you out of Monroe's departure.


Basically,

princeofpalace wrote:If we lose Monroe, we will get nothing in return.

for a way for that to not be true.


Now that's only one way of moving forward. Using your cap space to land a quality free agent is obviously another. Like I said, just thinking out loud.


Anyway, as I said in my first post:

SMTBSI wrote:Just, any peculiar scenario where an S&T would be advantageous would probably yield you a kind of eye-twitch-inducing, pyrrhic-victory sort of return.

SMTBSI wrote:The idea was basically that you find a team looking to move a bad contract, then take whatever fair compensation would be for taking that contract off their hands if Monroe wasn't in the picture, and bump it up a bit since you're facilitating them getting Monroe.

The idea being that, assuming Monroe's departure is inevitable, you're trying to use his departure to manufacture a little more value than you would have gotten in that deal otherwise.

I think a Boston fan coming in and talking about sending Wallace made it look like I was putting the idea forward solely out of self-interest. I was just trying to think outside the box on a way to somehow manufacture value for you out of Monroe's departure.


Basically,

princeofpalace wrote:If we lose Monroe, we will get nothing in return.

for a way for that to not be true.


Now that's only one way of moving forward. Using your cap space to land a quality free agent is obviously another. Like I said, just thinking out loud.


Anyway, as I said in my first post:

SMTBSI wrote:Just, any peculiar scenario where an S&T would be advantageous would probably yield you a kind of eye-twitch-inducing, pyrrhic-victory sort of return.

In my opinion, I believe what he's getting at is this. Boston is fighting for the playoffs already, so hypothetically, their pick this year will be around 13-15. If they add Monroe, you would think they would be better, meaning next year's pick would be even worse. So who in their right mind would take on Gerald Wallace to not touch the court just for, let's say, the 16th pick. THAT is the "mediocre asset" he's referring to. If Monroe leaves, $11 million in caspace is better than Gerald Wallace and #16. Hell I'd gamble on a Gallo trade for $11 million. At least you'd be planning on that $11 million being on the court contributing. Now Boston does own other draft picks, maybe you can be more specific on the teams and protections because "Gerald Wallace and another asset" sounds vomit worthy.

DetroitSho wrote:maybe you can be more specific on the teams and protections because "Gerald Wallace and another asset" sounds vomit worthy.

Truthfully, I hadn't gotten any farther in the thought process than whatever-fair-value-would-be-for-Wallace's-last-year-plus-a-little-bit-more. As I said, I'm bad at those sort of evaluations.

It was just the general idea of [Detroit strikes out on FAs] so [Detroit uses their capspace to take back a bad contract for compensation], while trying to use Monroe to leverage that compensation up a bit.

If that whole line of thinking is vomit worthy to you, so be it.

DetroitSho wrote:In my opinion, I believe what he's getting at is this. Boston is fighting for the playoffs already, so hypothetically, their pick this year will be around 13-15. If they add Monroe, you would think they would be better, meaning next year's pick would be even worse. So who in their right mind would take on Gerald Wallace to not touch the court just for, let's say, the 16th pick. THAT is the "mediocre asset" he's referring to.

So forget I mentioned Wallace. Scratch Boston off the list of potential partners.

I happened to suggest a bad contract on my team because my team is the team I am most familiar with. But I did not come here with the primary intent being to dump Wallace on to you. I came here with the primary intent of trying to come up with some creative way for Detroit to get something out of Monroe's departure.

I could trade Monroe to Boston for Wallace and Olynk and multiple #1 picks. The Celtics have I believe multiple picks from other teams.