Trade Idea Thread II

Wammy Giveaway · Post #1941 » by **Wammy Giveaway** » Thu Feb 4, 2016 3:42 am

og15 wrote:How big is that sample size of the Markieff Morris "Draymond Green stopper"?

Joshua Kelly wrote:According to Brian Windhorst, in the total of 21 minutes and 42 seconds Morris has guarded Green in the half-court, Green has shot 4-14 from the field and 2-8 from three and has had a drive rate that is below his career average.

In a conference that seems to run through Golden State, having a defender who has had proven success against one of the leagues most unguardable players, admittedly in a small sample size, is invaluable.

Ranma · Post #1942 » by **Ranma** » Thu Feb 4, 2016 3:47 am

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TaylorBojangles/status/695049162132426752[/tweet]

Post #1943 » by **og15** » Thu Feb 4, 2016 4:27 am

I mean, why not, he's still decently young

Quake Griffin · Post #1944 » by **Quake Griffin** » Thu Feb 4, 2016 4:37 am

What would it take?

TucsonClip · Post #1945 » by **TucsonClip** » Thu Feb 4, 2016 7:24 am

If all it takes is Wilcox I would do it.

Been following Payne since his HS days. Hes a bit of an oddball, just very aloof. I remember one college scouting service director telling me he didnt even know the college nicknames or team colors of the universities recruiting him. Keep in mind he was a major recruit out of HS and eventually signed with Michigan St.

Anything more than Wilcox and im not sure I would sign off. He has shown the ability every now and then to shoot the ball, is a pretty good athlete for his size and has contributed on the glass previously. Basically, hes a guy you never know what you are going to get, but its an area of need and Wilcox is never going to see time here.

nickhx2 · Post #1946 » by **nickhx2** » Thu Feb 4, 2016 4:43 pm

agree. i think wilcox is an easy swap for payne.

Post #1947 » by **og15** » Fri Feb 5, 2016 5:27 am

Yea, seems reasonable. He was an older rookie like Wilcox, the most exciting thing for him this season is his 8/21 3PT shooting, but 21 attempts is nothing. Still, career wise so far he's a 40.9% FG shooting from 16ft - <3PT and he's taking 29% of his FGA from there, and he sees himself as a stretch 4, so he probably worked on that a lot.

NBA wise he's been a weak finisher at the basket, 52.7% FG, and though he's improved this season, he's still below average for a big man at 56.3%, and this is with a very nice 7'4 wingspan and 9'1 standing reach and being pretty athletic. So that part is not great, might be a strength issue.

I would have no issue with him on the Clippers bench like I said earlier, if something could be figured out, he's worth giving a shot.

Ranma · Post #1948 » by **Ranma** » Fri Feb 5, 2016 12:15 pm

Bobby Marks, Yahoo! Sports (2/4/16)

UP FOR DEBATE
C.J. Wilcox
Wilcox, 25, has not been able to crack the Clippers’ rotation in his first two seasons in the NBA. He was drafted in 2014 and is still a bargain on his current rookie contract. As the core of the Clippers gets older, the development of players such as Wilcox will become key. Unless the Clippers get something of long-term value, it would be hard to move Wilcox.
...

WORTH TAKING THE CALL
Lance Stephenson
Stephenson, who has a $9 million team option in June, has seen his value decline further since his days in Indiana. Because the Clippers will likely be at or over the cap, cutting Stephenson in June would offer no cap relief nor allow Los Angeles to sign a replacement player.
...

TREASURE CHEST OF PICKS
Restricted
The first-round pick Toronto has in 2017 limits the Clippers’ flexibility of sending out current and future picks. This might seem to be a negative, but with the core group getting older, Los Angeles will need to start to replenish its roster with youth. C.J. Wilcox is the only first-round pick on the roster since 2010.

The Clippers have their own first-round pick, projected to be in the late 20s.

Toronto will receive that 2017 pick if it is not in the lottery. The pick would be lottery-protected in 2018 and 2019 if the Clippers keep the pick. If the Raptors do not receive the pick by 2019 then it will turn into second-round picks in 2020 and 2021.

Los Angeles cannot trade a first-round pick until 2021.

Guide to the Trade Deadline: Clippers

Dupp · Post #1949 » by **Dupp** » Fri Feb 5, 2016 7:38 pm

Do you guys think theres anything to worry about with all the blake rumours or just nonsense because blake hit that guy?

Ranma · Post #1950 » by **Ranma** » Fri Feb 5, 2016 7:55 pm

Dupp wrote:Do you guys think theres anything to worry about with all the blake rumours or just nonsense because blake hit that guy?

Much ado about nothing. We actually have a bit of discussion going on in the "Blake out with Torn Quad" thread starting on page 9.

nickhx2 · Post #1951 » by **nickhx2** » Fri Feb 5, 2016 8:59 pm

Dupp wrote:Do you guys think theres anything to worry about with all the blake rumours or just nonsense because blake hit that guy?

Well, basically what happens 99% of the time is someone says something stupid and the media and/or haters blow it up into something unbelievably crazy.

DJ calls up doc and says "i want to come back, i made a mistake"
Media/haters: CLIPPERS WENT OUT AND SWINDLED DALLAS AND THEY HAVE RUINED NBA FA FOREVER

Doc says warriors had good fortune to stay near 100% healthy?
Media/haters: DOC SAID WARRIORS WERE LUCKY TO EVEN WIN

Doc probably mentions off-hand that blake has the most value?
Media/haters: CLIPS TRADING BLAKE, HE'S A CANCER, GIVE THAT TEAM AS MANY SPARE PARTS AS POSSIBLE

Portland fudges up and can't play cj mccollum?
Media/haters: DOC WAS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE, HE COULD HAVE LET CJ PLAY BUT HE OPTED NOT TO CAUSE HE'S A CHEATING BASTARD

i mean, it is unreal how ridiculous some of this stuff is. basically what i'm trying to say is: Welcome to your typical Clipperland day.

Post #1952 » by **og15** » Sat Feb 6, 2016 2:25 am

Dupp wrote:Do you guys think theres anything to worry about with all the blake rumours or just nonsense because blake hit that guy?

Just nonsense. Clippers have already said that at the least he's staying through the season, and in the off-season the team will obviously evaluate all its options, but any idea that the Clippers are actually actively looking to trade Griffin should not be taken seriously.

erudite23 · Post #1953 » by **erudite23** » Sat Feb 6, 2016 2:31 am

Hey guys! Jazz fan here. I know you guys are probably annoyed af with all the Griffin trade rumors and the bad press you've been getting. Promise I'm not here to stir ish up. Just a quick question to gauge your interest as well as what you *think* your FO's interest would be.

Basically I'm wondering how you would feel about a deal centered around Gordon Hayward for Blake. Something like Gordon, Trey Lyles, a future unprotected 1st and cap filler.

That would give you guys the big time wing you have been needing since forever, it would let you play small, give you another ball handler to ease the load on CP and give you a potential young playmaking 4 to slot into Blake's place next to Jordan.

For the Jazz, we would probably have to turn around and flip Favors (or maybe Gobert) for either a stud PG or another wing to fill Gordon's void, but I think Blake would be phenomenal in Utah's offense with Quin coaching him. He might hate playing in SLC, but that would be a problem for another day.

Anyway, what do you think?

Post #1954 » by **og15** » Sat Feb 6, 2016 2:40 am

Well I'll tell you this, a trade centered around Hayward is at least better than a decent amount of the ideas that have been floated around

TucsonClip · Post #1955 » by **TucsonClip** » Sat Feb 6, 2016 4:43 am

Here is what I've been telling Denver fans today...

Blake and Lance

for

Gallo, Chandler, Barton, Jokic and your #1 this year unprotected.

If you say no, fine. Ill hang up and enjoy Blake.

Honestly, if it were me, I wouldnt deal him unless its for Durant... Meaning, he's the franchise cornerstone and not going anywhere.

nickhx2 · Post #1956 » by **nickhx2** » Sat Feb 6, 2016 6:32 am

i'd ask for most of that and mudiay. just to see them recoil in horror and to show them how serious this team is about keeping blake.

BlzMwt · Post #1957 » by **BlzMwt** » Sat Feb 6, 2016 10:27 pm

Mudiay would play a lot better if he had Paul's tutelage. Disastrous season but I think he's got potential.

All these trade scenarios involving Faried coming back to the Clippers though... the spacing issues would be a disaster

nickhx2 · Post #1958 » by **nickhx2** » Sat Feb 6, 2016 11:01 pm

just really couldn't happen if faried were involved.

i think it'd have to be something like barton/mudiay/chandler/gallo for blake/lance. but if lance were to keep playing like he currently is then you wouldn't even do that.

erudite23 · Post #1959 » by **erudite23** » Sun Feb 7, 2016 6:27 am

og15 wrote:Well I'll tell you this, a trade centered around Hayward is at least better than a decent amount of the ideas that have been floated around

Thanks for the response, man. It sounds like your boys are sick of all the trade scenarios. I don't know why anyone would be interested in a Denver package over one built around Gordon Hayward. He's already a better player than any of their pieces are likely to ever become. But whatever floats your boat.

Don Tommy · Post #1960 » by **Don Tommy** » Sun Feb 7, 2016 9:58 am

Sticking with the Utah trade. Blake and Crawford for Gordon, Burke and Favors? I want to keep Lance, especially with Austin out. I forget of Burke or Burks is the one they want to get rid of. Our second unit would be Burke, Lance, Wes, Pierce, Luc and Cole, plus Austin when he gets back, the two young guys that never play and Pablo.
We lose Crawford and Blake but we now have a complete starting five.