RealGM

Our expirings of Blake Tolliver Anthony should get us something. Ilyasova and Jennings are basically expirings too but it would be nice to hold onto them.
I wish Chicago would give us Taj. He would really solidify the PF spot with Ily. They are pretty stacked up front though and having trouble giving everyone minutes

Yeah Stan is gonna have to make some trades. This is bad. If Jennings doesn't play well then he can be traded too.

Spider156 wrote:Yeah Stan is gonna have to make some trades. This is bad. If Jennings doesn't play well then he can be traded too.

If Jennings plays well, he will demand at least 10 mill per year this offseason. This team is not in a position to pay that much for a backup. Stan should be trading him whether or not he plays well for assets (i.e. picks or young players) before the trade deadline.

I think in the new Nba economy u can pay 10m for your 6th man. Cuban talking about having 3 guys possibly making 30m, to compete with that we need 10m dollar 6th men.

Southern Piston wrote:I think in the new Nba economy u can pay 10m for your 6th man. Cuban talking about having 3 guys possibly making 30m, to compete with that we need 10m dollar 6th men.

I think we all know Cuban is willing to spend anything to get what he wants (i.e. Chandler Parsons). And sure, I'd be willing to spend 10 mill for a backup if my team's starters were legit NBA starters and my team is competing for a top seed. But this Pistons team lacks legit starters (at the SG, SF, and PF position IMO) and is not competing for a top seed in the east. And however accurate this is, Pistons already have the 8th largest payroll: http://hoopshype.com/salaries/.

I like the way Marvin Williams is playing this year, a stretch four who can block shots and is knocking down almost 2 3's a game at 40%. Contract year though and probably will go back to playing crap after some team pays up.

Stan ain't blowing it up early or even mid-season. We don't have the pieces anyways unless Mook or Ersan are dangled as we need a big contract to get an impact type trade. Basically we're going to ride out this season, hope Jennings can provide a spark off the bench and maybe cut Blake for the roster spot to sign a DLeague kid blowing up down there.

Cuban said it would be hard to swallow paying 3 guys 30m, but obviously then he's envisioned it. But again I think 10m for a 30 min a game starter or not is possible. I think we really just need the PF and a third guard, the rest is pretty much there it just needs more time to grow.

bkseven wrote:

Spider156 wrote:Yeah Stan is gonna have to make some trades. This is bad. If Jennings doesn't play well then he can be traded too.

If Jennings plays well, he will demand at least 10 mill per year this offseason. This team is not in a position to pay that much for a backup. Stan should be trading him whether or not he plays well for assets (i.e. picks or young players) before the trade deadline.

If 10m is too much for us to pay for a backup, why would another team give us assets for him for a few month rental, knowing they have to pay the same 10m to resign him in the summer in addition to giving us assets?

I think his exp contract could be valuable in a salary dump deal, but then we are talking about adding a longer contract and that player would have to be noticeably better, otherwise might as well just resign Jennings.

If we could get a couple elite shooter/role players for him, that could be worth exploring though. A 3 team deal for Nick Young and Hollis Thompson would work salary wise, and their shooting might be more valuable than what Jennings provides.

Todd3 wrote:

bkseven wrote:

Spider156 wrote:Yeah Stan is gonna have to make some trades. This is bad. If Jennings doesn't play well then he can be traded too.

If Jennings plays well, he will demand at least 10 mill per year this offseason. This team is not in a position to pay that much for a backup. Stan should be trading him whether or not he plays well for assets (i.e. picks or young players) before the trade deadline.

If 10m is too much for us to pay for a backup, why would another team give us assets for him for a few month rental, knowing they have to pay the same 10m to resign him in the summer in addition to giving us assets?

I think his exp contract could be valuable in a salary dump deal, but then we are talking about adding a longer contract and that player would have to be noticeably better, otherwise might as well just resign Jennings.

If we could get a couple elite shooter/role players for him, that could be worth exploring though. A 3 team deal for Nick Young and Hollis Thompson would work salary wise, and their shooting might be more valuable than what Jennings provides.

Here are two reasons:

1) He could help a team lacking depth at the PG position increase their chances of making it deep into the playoffs (i.e. the Cavs with an injured Irving prolly woudn't mind having Jennings as a starter).

2) He could be a player a team wants to sign long term at the starting PG position. Not a bad idea for a team to rent a guy for a few months to determine if they want to sign him long term. Just like how we gave up Singler, DJ, and a second round pick for Reggie. Why would we give up some assets to sign a guy we could have just signed in the summer without giving anything?

bkseven wrote:

Todd3 wrote:

bkseven wrote:If Jennings plays well, he will demand at least 10 mill per year this offseason. This team is not in a position to pay that much for a backup. Stan should be trading him whether or not he plays well for assets (i.e. picks or young players) before the trade deadline.

If 10m is too much for us to pay for a backup, why would another team give us assets for him for a few month rental, knowing they have to pay the same 10m to resign him in the summer in addition to giving us assets?

I think his exp contract could be valuable in a salary dump deal, but then we are talking about adding a longer contract and that player would have to be noticeably better, otherwise might as well just resign Jennings.

If we could get a couple elite shooter/role players for him, that could be worth exploring though. A 3 team deal for Nick Young and Hollis Thompson would work salary wise, and their shooting might be more valuable than what Jennings provides.

Here are two reasons:

1) He could help a team lacking depth at the PG position increase their chances of making it deep into the playoffs (i.e. the Cavs with an injured Irving prolly woudn't mind having Jennings as a starter).

2) He could be a player a team wants to sign long term at the starting PG position. Not a bad idea for a team to rent a guy for a few months to determine if they want to sign him long term. Just like how we gave up Singler, DJ, and a second round pick for Reggie. Why would we give up some assets to sign a guy we could have just signed in the summer without giving anything?

yeah, those are possibilities. I just don't think teams are into the rent-a-player thing as much anymore, and if a team was interested in him as a longterm starter they could sign him in the summer w/o trading anything. The Reggie deal was a bit different because we likely wouldnt have been able to sign him as a RFA otherwise.

I personally think we would be wise to see what he can do as our PG first. Jennings/Jackson may prove a great fit together and end up us being the team wanting to resign him as a starter.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PistonsHockey/status/670297564235739137[/tweet]

The bench is giving us nothing at the moment. I do not see us going deep into the playoffs, probably not even making the second round to tell the truth. In order to make a trade a team must usually have to give up an asset or take back a negative contract. We do not currently have many assets we are willing to part with. So the question becomes are we willing to take back a bad contract/player to gain an asset? With the cap going up next season I would be willing to dip into next years cap space if it means gaining talent. I don't think we are going to be a great free agent destination and we can go over the cap to sign our guys so I think I would be O.K. with that approach. Here is an example of what I am talking about.

Detroit trades: Illyasova, Meeks, and Blake.

Houston trades: Lawson, McDaniels, and Motiejunas.

Why for Huston? Lawson has been a disaster to say the least. He, as of tonights game, is not getting any playing time at all. He has a fairly large contract this year and next and I think Huston wants him gone. McDaniels is a young player with potential to be a 3 and D type guy but currently is not being played. Motiejunas is a Stretch four that can ply in the post and also can play at the five. Huston is in "win now" mode and our guys help with that more than Lawson and McDaniels will. Montiejunas is good and they seem to think highly of him. But you have to "give a little to get a little" Oh, and Huston had the opportunity to extend him this off season and did not because he is currently recovering from an injury, but it could be just a salary cap ploy. Also, all but Meeks are expiring deals if Huston so chooses.

Why for Detroit: Illyasova has been decent and Meeks could prove to be good when he comes back. Blake is more of a pass first guy and is not looking to score I think he would be a solid contributor in Huston as they would not be looking for him to score. Lawson might need a change of scenery. He is a ball dominant PG that looks for his first. In Huston that is a problem. Coming off our bench that might be an asset. But really, the payoff is Montiejunas. He could be a good fit next to Drummond and a great player off the bench. McDaniels is an interesting player and might pan out but he is more of a project. Huston might want to swap out Jennings for Illyasova and I would be O.K. with that too ( I would want a draft pick in addition thought). Because we are not giving up anyone that is in the long term plans for the future. We would be taking back a good chunk of cap space for next year but acquiring Montie and McDaniels would be worth it I feel.

Motiejunas is really the guy we need: good shooter, good post moves, good passer, good defender, good bb iq, also a poor rebounder with poor athleticism but still... He's the perfect fit next to Drummond.

Drummond/Baynes
Motiejunas/Tolliver
Johnson/Morris
Caldwell-Pope/Hilliard
Jackson/Jennings

Good rotation.

Re-sign both Drummond, Motiejunas and Jennings this summer. Then sign another shooter at PF to replace Tolliver in the rotation, maybe another SG shooter too if Hilliard can't be this guy.

ducler wrote:Motiejunas is really the guy we need: good shooter, good post moves, good passer, good defender, good bb iq, also a poor rebounder with poor athleticism but still... He's the perfect fit next to Drummond.

Drummond/Baynes
Motiejunas/Tolliver
Johnson/Morris
Caldwell-Pope/Hilliard
Jackson/Jennings

Good rotation.

Re-sign both Drummond, Motiejunas and Jennings this summer. Then sign another shooter at PF to replace both Tolliver in the rotation, maybe another SG shooter too if Hilliard can't be this guy.

I would love Motiejunas. Resign him in the offseason, let Tolliver and Ersan walk and have Morris in Tolliver's role. Then acquire by signing or trade an absolute lethal 3 point shooter to back up Stanley at the 3.

Motiejunas is definitely attainable if we act quick. Morey didnt offer him or Jones a contract cause hes clearly going to try and go after a bigger name first. If we jump on him out the gate we could put Houston in a tough spot.

Drummond waited to sign so we would have max level space next summer. Maybe that rules out trading our expirings for a contract. Hmmmmm. Right?

Hopefully Joe Johnson gets bought out and he signs with us for the Minimum.
Maybe we trade Ilyasova for Markieff or Taj? I was really hoping for more of a tough nosed team like bad boys 2.0. One of those 2 would help

we have nothing to offer. maybe teams that need perimeter defense could have an interest in KCP, other than that we stuck

We are dependent on internal growth to get better this season. The offseason is the only place to make moves at this time.