Quarter-pole trade market

[R-DAWG]

I don't think it was that bad of a deal for Utah. Kanter was gone and they got a 1st rd pick for him. Jackson was gone as you got 2 bench players for him, in the same deal where a 1st rd pick was traded for Kanter.

Jackson was gone and they got more in the deal than Utah did. It would have taken a pick to dump perk's contract.

We discussed this back then and my take was Perkins for Novak was a fair swap of bad contracts.

In terms of Perkins --
$9,654,342 cap hit this year.
Novak --
$3,445,947 cap hit this year
$3,750,001 next year.

Novak's next year should be more than Perkin's remaining prorated balance. If we are talking a straight swap of bad contracts, I would say that a 1 for 1 deal, I think it might be fair value, although I would argue that the team getting it all over at once now is getting the better end of it.

My other takes from back then:

So...
Kanter is worth a first and Tibor, while Jackson is worth a 2nd and Singler?

Love what Detroit did.
Love what Utah got (because I dislike Kanter).

OKC just doubled down on the Waiters deal, now trading another 1st for a flawed former high pick. As a combined deal, I like this less than the Waiters deal for them.

{Edit: Should have been Jackson is worth 2 2nds, and Kanter is worth a first Tibor and a 2nd, but missing a second on each is fair right?}

I think having the defenders around Kanter surely will help, but when they are playing the likes of TD and Gasol, they're going to have to have Adams in or Ibaka play them. If anything they can do what the Nets do with Lopez and let Kanter do his damage against second units from the bench and if the match=up is right or he's play well keep him in. Seems there is plenty of time as Adams can be foul prone, and I think Kanter can play some PF.

So, in order for Kanter to work defensively, he would need someone like Favors and Gobert? I hate the low return for Jackson, but I also hate the high price OKC paid for Kanter and don't see him fitting.

viewtopic.php?p=42742873

Another great post. Doubling down on the Waiters deal and putting all these chips on the table in the year Durant is hurt is why I think Sam Presti's performance should be evaluated.

Even if Jackson was locker room problem, if you told OKC fans in October 2014 that they would trade Jackson and 2 1's for Enes Kanter and bench depth they would laugh in your face.

[bondom34]

Jackson was gone and they got more in the deal than Utah did. It would have taken a pick to dump perk's contract.

We discussed this back then and my take was Perkins for Novak was a fair swap of bad contracts.

In terms of Perkins --
$9,654,342 cap hit this year.
Novak --
$3,445,947 cap hit this year
$3,750,001 next year.

Novak's next year should be more than Perkin's remaining prorated balance. If we are talking a straight swap of bad contracts, I would say that a 1 for 1 deal, I think it might be fair value, although I would argue that the team getting it all over at once now is getting the better end of it.

My other takes from back then:

So...
Kanter is worth a first and Tibor, while Jackson is worth a 2nd and Singler?

Love what Detroit did.
Love what Utah got (because I dislike Kanter).

OKC just doubled down on the Waiters deal, now trading another 1st for a flawed former high pick. As a combined deal, I like this less than the Waiters deal for them.

{Edit: Should have been Jackson is worth 2 2nds, and Kanter is worth a first Tibor and a 2nd, but missing a second on each is fair right?}

So, in order for Kanter to work defensively, he would need someone like Favors and Gobert? I hate the low return for Jackson, but I also hate the high price OKC paid for Kanter and don't see him fitting.

viewtopic.php?p=42742873

Another great post. Doubling down on the Waiters deal and putting all these chips on the table in the year Durant is hurt is why I think Sam Presti's performance should be evaluated.

Even if Jackson was locker room problem, if you told OKC fans in October 2014 that they would trade Jackson and 2 1's for Enes Kanter and bench depth they would laugh in your face.

Yeah, I flat disagree with both of you. I can't think of a single OKC fan unhappy with the Kanter deal. Kanter is more an asset to OKC than RJ.

[bondom34]

Say what you want they traded 2 future 1st rd picks and Reggie Jackson for a bunch of backups and still don't have a starting caliber shooting guard on the roster. I understand the trade. But you could have signed a DJ Augustin or Kyle Singler level player with the tax payer mid level.

Jackson and 2 future 1's should have been more than enough to get a guy like Furnier or Aaron Afflalo. Heck, take out the pick that went for Kanter and Jackson plus a future 1st should have been more than enough to get involved in the Fournier/Afflalo trade from the summer for 2014. The mistake with Jackson IMO was not trading him during the summer of 2014 if you didn't intend to sign him.

I don't think Presti did a good job last year. I don't think the OKC roster has good balance. In the playoffs you really only need 8 rotation players. But you need guys who can play both ways. OKC is either sacrificing defense or shooting at SG. It's the biggest weakness on the roster. They bought high on Waiters and sold low on Jackson.

The only thing I don't like was the Waiters deal, so we agree on that. And the coaching hire right now too, but that's separate. I have zero problem with Jackson because he was a Josh Smith level bad locker room presence and they needed to get something. Kanter offers a skill they've never had and is really useful for them, so say what you will, and the SG still is weak, but I disagree he did a poor job overall, he made 1 bad move.

To be honest I like everything much better for OKC if they either didn't do the Waiters deal or used Jackson as the value to get Waiters. Breaking it down it seems like they downgraded from Jackson to Waiters and gave up a 1st to do so.

I have heard concerns about RJ in the locker room from multiple people so that is valid.

But now your down 2 future 1sts which will make things diffacult at the deadline if a starting caliber SG becomes available. Even if it's a veteran like Aaron Afflalo (if the Knicks start trending downward by the deadline) what does OKC have to offer that the Knicks would want that is fair value for AA on basically an expiring deal. As a Knick fan I'm saying either Adams or Payne would be an overpay from OKC and McGary isn't enough to justify moving AA. However, if OKC could offer the 1st rd pick they gave up for Waiters, different story.

It's kind of funny that OKC didn't go all-in until Durant got hurt.

This I agree. And the last line is kind of iffy, because they also couldn't have dumped Perk so cheap any sooner.

[R-DAWG]

We discussed this back then and my take was Perkins for Novak was a fair swap of bad contracts.



My other takes from back then:



{Edit: Should have been Jackson is worth 2 2nds, and Kanter is worth a first Tibor and a 2nd, but missing a second on each is fair right?}




viewtopic.php?p=42742873

Another great post. Doubling down on the Waiters deal and putting all these chips on the table in the year Durant is hurt is why I think Sam Presti's performance should be evaluated.

Even if Jackson was locker room problem, if you told OKC fans in October 2014 that they would trade Jackson and 2 1's for Enes Kanter and bench depth they would laugh in your face.

Yeah, I flat disagree with both of you. I can't think of a single OKC fan unhappy with the Kanter deal. Kanter is more an asset to OKC than RJ.

Again, Kanter could have been acquired without trading Reggie Jackson. And I agree that it would have been a good move.
Reggie Jackson and Dion Waiters is 6 in one, half dozen the other

Let's take Kanter out of it. Using a 1st rd pick to turn Jackson's roster spot into Waiters was not a good move.

My whole point, which was proven by other posters, is that acquiring Kanter and moving Jackson are 2 separate things.

[R-DAWG]

The only thing I don't like was the Waiters deal, so we agree on that. And the coaching hire right now too, but that's separate. I have zero problem with Jackson because he was a Josh Smith level bad locker room presence and they needed to get something. Kanter offers a skill they've never had and is really useful for them, so say what you will, and the SG still is weak, but I disagree he did a poor job overall, he made 1 bad move.

To be honest I like everything much better for OKC if they either didn't do the Waiters deal or used Jackson as the value to get Waiters. Breaking it down it seems like they downgraded from Jackson to Waiters and gave up a 1st to do so.

I have heard concerns about RJ in the locker room from multiple people so that is valid.

But now your down 2 future 1sts which will make things diffacult at the deadline if a starting caliber SG becomes available. Even if it's a veteran like Aaron Afflalo (if the Knicks start trending downward by the deadline) what does OKC have to offer that the Knicks would want that is fair value for AA on basically an expiring deal. As a Knick fan I'm saying either Adams or Payne would be an overpay from OKC and McGary isn't enough to justify moving AA. However, if OKC could offer the 1st rd pick they gave up for Waiters, different story.

It's kind of funny that OKC didn't go all-in until Durant got hurt.

This I agree. And the last line is kind of iffy, because they also couldn't have dumped Perk so cheap any sooner.

Did they dump Perkins or use his salary to facilitate a trade? My understanding was that OKC did not amnesty Perkins because they wanted to turn his money into other role players. They also took back a bad contract in Novak so they didn't really "dump" Perkins contract.

Again, I have absolutely no problem moving a 1st for Kanter. I would not have moved Jackson for 2 bench players and 2 2nd rd picks but I understand the move. If they didn't have to give up the pick for Waiters it makes the moves more palatable.

[bondom34]

Another great post. Doubling down on the Waiters deal and putting all these chips on the table in the year Durant is hurt is why I think Sam Presti's performance should be evaluated.

Even if Jackson was locker room problem, if you told OKC fans in October 2014 that they would trade Jackson and 2 1's for Enes Kanter and bench depth they would laugh in your face.

Yeah, I flat disagree with both of you. I can't think of a single OKC fan unhappy with the Kanter deal. Kanter is more an asset to OKC than RJ.

Again, Kanter could have been acquired without trading Reggie Jackson. And I agree that it would have been a good move.
Reggie Jackson and Dion Waiters is 6 in one, half dozen the other

Let's take Kanter out of it. Using a 1st rd pick to turn Jackson's roster spot into Waiters was not a good move.

My whole point, which was proven by other posters, is that acquiring Kanter and moving Jackson are 2 separate things.

I view them as the same, and I view both as positives. Jackson was a liability, Kanter an asset. They had no other options with Jackson to boot when he demands a trade a day prior and there were all of maybe 2-3 interested teams.

Did they dump Perkins or use his salary to facilitate a trade? My understanding was that OKC did not amnesty Perkins because they wanted to turn his money into other role players. They also took back a bad contract in Novak.

Little of both, they couldn't dump him earlier bc his deal was too big to dump with nothing but a late first until it was expiring. And Novak to me is a better contract than Perk (and to add apparently he's like Kanter's babysitter so I think they were a package deal).

[bondom34]

This I agree. And the last line is kind of iffy, because they also couldn't have dumped Perk so cheap any sooner.

Did they dump Perkins or use his salary to facilitate a trade? My understanding was that OKC did not amnesty Perkins because they wanted to turn his money into other role players. They also took back a bad contract in Novak so they didn't really "dump" Perkins contract.

Again, I have absolutely no problem moving a 1st for Kanter. I would not have moved Jackson for 2 bench players and 2 2nd rd picks but I understand the move. If they didn't have to give up the pick for Waiters it makes the moves more palatable.

Sorry, just saw the edit. I think we're mostly agreeing after 2 pages of this . I view the Kanter deal differently, and part of Jackson was nobody wanted him. The only other rumor was Brooklyn (the only one that got close at least) and the trade they did was better IMO.

[HartfordWhalers]

Instead of continuing to rehash this old stuff, I'm moving on to a Mitch McGary trade idea thread.

[R-DAWG]

This I agree. And the last line is kind of iffy, because they also couldn't have dumped Perk so cheap any sooner.

Did they dump Perkins or use his salary to facilitate a trade? My understanding was that OKC did not amnesty Perkins because they wanted to turn his money into other role players. They also took back a bad contract in Novak so they didn't really "dump" Perkins contract.

Again, I have absolutely no problem moving a 1st for Kanter. I would not have moved Jackson for 2 bench players and 2 2nd rd picks but I understand the move. If they didn't have to give up the pick for Waiters it makes the moves more palatable.

Sorry, just saw the edit. I think we're mostly agreeing after 2 pages of this . I view the Kanter deal differently, and part of Jackson was nobody wanted him. The only other rumor was Brooklyn (the only one that got close at least) and the trade they did was better IMO.

I would have done Jackson for Lopez over a 1st for Kanter and Jackson for role players. Even if you think Kanter is better than Lopez (and career numbers say the opposite) Lopez is real value for Jackson. Even if you think Kanter is better (although Lopez has been better throughout his career) this trade would have turned Reggie into an all star without giving up a pick. You could have gotten very similar production without sacrificing a future 1.

I feel like Augustin and Singler level players could have been acquired for much cheaper than the 1st rd pick that was essentially the difference between Lopez for Jackson and Kanter, Singler, Augustine for Jackson and a 1st. Brooklyn was have absorbed Perkins contract to facilitate the deal without making you eat Novak's deal as well.

[bondom34]

Did they dump Perkins or use his salary to facilitate a trade? My understanding was that OKC did not amnesty Perkins because they wanted to turn his money into other role players. They also took back a bad contract in Novak so they didn't really "dump" Perkins contract.

Again, I have absolutely no problem moving a 1st for Kanter. I would not have moved Jackson for 2 bench players and 2 2nd rd picks but I understand the move. If they didn't have to give up the pick for Waiters it makes the moves more palatable.

Sorry, just saw the edit. I think we're mostly agreeing after 2 pages of this . I view the Kanter deal differently, and part of Jackson was nobody wanted him. The only other rumor was Brooklyn (the only one that got close at least) and the trade they did was better IMO.

I would have done Jackson for Lopez over a 1st for Kanter and Jackson for role players. Even if you think Kanter is better than Lopez (and career numbers say the opposite) Lopez is real value for Jackson. Even if you think Kanter is better (although Lopez has been better throughout his career) this trade would have turned Reggie into an all star without giving up a pick. You could have gotten very similar production without sacrificing a future 1.

I feel like Augustin and Singler level players could have been acquired for much cheaper than the 1st rd pick that was essentially the difference between Lopez for Jackson and Kanter, Singler, Augustine for Jackson and a 1st. Brooklyn was have absorbed Perkins contract to facilitate the deal without making you eat Novak's deal as well.

Problem was it left OKC without any other ball handlers, and Lopez was opting out (they were ready to do the deal for him but Lopez wouldn't agree to opt in). So they would have paid a guy who's an older, slightly better player but much more an injury concern and been left with no backup PG. They were ready to sign Norris Cole, and he's just worse than Augustin by a good bit. At this point Lopez is better, but given contract, age, and injury I take Kanter I think. At the time Lopez's injuries were way bigger a concern.

[R-DAWG]

Sorry, just saw the edit. I think we're mostly agreeing after 2 pages of this . I view the Kanter deal differently, and part of Jackson was nobody wanted him. The only other rumor was Brooklyn (the only one that got close at least) and the trade they did was better IMO.

I would have done Jackson for Lopez over a 1st for Kanter and Jackson for role players. Even if you think Kanter is better than Lopez (and career numbers say the opposite) Lopez is real value for Jackson. Even if you think Kanter is better (although Lopez has been better throughout his career) this trade would have turned Reggie into an all star without giving up a pick. You could have gotten very similar production without sacrificing a future 1.

I feel like Augustin and Singler level players could have been acquired for much cheaper than the 1st rd pick that was essentially the difference between Lopez for Jackson and Kanter, Singler, Augustine for Jackson and a 1st. Brooklyn was have absorbed Perkins contract to facilitate the deal without making you eat Novak's deal as well.

Problem was it left OKC without any other ball handlers, and Lopez was opting out (they were ready to do the deal for him but Lopez wouldn't agree to opt in). So they would have paid a guy who's an older, slightly better player but much more an injury concern and been left with no backup PG. They were ready to sign Norris Cole, and he's just worse than Augustin by a good bit. At this point Lopez is better, but given contract, age, and injury I take Kanter I think. At the time Lopez's injuries were way bigger a concern.

Lopez is on a better contract than Kanter IMO. There are financial protections against injury. 1 less guaranteed year.
Brooklyn would have also been willing to including Jaret Jack.
I'd rather have an extra 1st rd pick and Norris Cole than DJ Augustin, but that's just me.

[bondom34]

I would have done Jackson for Lopez over a 1st for Kanter and Jackson for role players. Even if you think Kanter is better than Lopez (and career numbers say the opposite) Lopez is real value for Jackson. Even if you think Kanter is better (although Lopez has been better throughout his career) this trade would have turned Reggie into an all star without giving up a pick. You could have gotten very similar production without sacrificing a future 1.

I feel like Augustin and Singler level players could have been acquired for much cheaper than the 1st rd pick that was essentially the difference between Lopez for Jackson and Kanter, Singler, Augustine for Jackson and a 1st. Brooklyn was have absorbed Perkins contract to facilitate the deal without making you eat Novak's deal as well.

Problem was it left OKC without any other ball handlers, and Lopez was opting out (they were ready to do the deal for him but Lopez wouldn't agree to opt in). So they would have paid a guy who's an older, slightly better player but much more an injury concern and been left with no backup PG. They were ready to sign Norris Cole, and he's just worse than Augustin by a good bit. At this point Lopez is better, but given contract, age, and injury I take Kanter I think. At the time Lopez's injuries were way bigger a concern.

Lopez is on a better contract than Kanter IMO. There are financial protections against injury. 1 less guaranteed year.
Brooklyn would have also been willing to including Jaret Jack.
I'd rather have an extra 1st rd pick and Norris Cole than DJ Augustin, but that's just me.

Jack I don't think worked financially (or they weren't willing, I don't remember which, but I know that the option wasn't there). And the protections against injury weren't there, Lopez was a free agent and unrestricted, he could have just walked. There was no guarantee he was more than a 2 month rental.

[R-DAWG]

Problem was it left OKC without any other ball handlers, and Lopez was opting out (they were ready to do the deal for him but Lopez wouldn't agree to opt in). So they would have paid a guy who's an older, slightly better player but much more an injury concern and been left with no backup PG. They were ready to sign Norris Cole, and he's just worse than Augustin by a good bit. At this point Lopez is better, but given contract, age, and injury I take Kanter I think. At the time Lopez's injuries were way bigger a concern.

Lopez is on a better contract than Kanter IMO. There are financial protections against injury. 1 less guaranteed year.
Brooklyn would have also been willing to including Jaret Jack.
I'd rather have an extra 1st rd pick and Norris Cole than DJ Augustin, but that's just me.

Jack I don't think worked financially (or they weren't willing, I don't remember which, but I know that the option wasn't there). And the protections against injury weren't there, Lopez was a free agent and unrestricted, he could have just walked. There was no guarantee he was more than a 2 month rental.

no argument there. But wasn't Jackson in the same position?

Give me Lopez and a 1st rd pick over Kanter and Augustin every day.

You can find a player on Augustin's level for much much cheaper.

[bondom34]

Lopez is on a better contract than Kanter IMO. There are financial protections against injury. 1 less guaranteed year.
Brooklyn would have also been willing to including Jaret Jack.
I'd rather have an extra 1st rd pick and Norris Cole than DJ Augustin, but that's just me.

Jack I don't think worked financially (or they weren't willing, I don't remember which, but I know that the option wasn't there). And the protections against injury weren't there, Lopez was a free agent and unrestricted, he could have just walked. There was no guarantee he was more than a 2 month rental.

no argument there. But wasn't Jackson in the same position?

Give me Lopez and a 1st rd pick over Kanter and Augustin every day.

jackson was RFA, Lopez UFA, Kanter RFA, they could control Kanter, not Lopez. So it could have been Jackson for literally nothing this year.

[R-DAWG]

Jack I don't think worked financially (or they weren't willing, I don't remember which, but I know that the option wasn't there). And the protections against injury weren't there, Lopez was a free agent and unrestricted, he could have just walked. There was no guarantee he was more than a 2 month rental.

no argument there. But wasn't Jackson in the same position?

Give me Lopez and a 1st rd pick over Kanter and Augustin every day.

jackson was RFA, Lopez UFA, Kanter RFA, they could control Kanter, not Lopez. So it could have been Jackson for literally nothing this year.

Understood. I still would have done the Brooklyn deal. The first round pick was more valuable than anything in the trade IMO.
Jackson for 2 months of Lopez vs Jackson for 15 months of Augustin. Give me Lopez every time.

[HartfordWhalers]

Lopez is on a better contract than Kanter IMO. There are financial protections against injury. 1 less guaranteed year.
Brooklyn would have also been willing to including Jaret Jack.
I'd rather have an extra 1st rd pick and Norris Cole than DJ Augustin, but that's just me.

While this gets said a lot (in general), it is usually not based upon any facts. The team has no protection that I am aware of whatsoever. His deal doesn't have injury clauses like Webster's did (2.5m guaranteed but if he played 70 games all 5m guaranteed), and generic insurance on a player's deal is normal. Furthermore, it is my understanding that pre-existing injuries are always excluded, so if Lopez misses games because of the same injury to his foot insurance might not even cover it.

That said, regardless of the insurance angle there is no team protection in terms of the salary cap etc.

[bondom34]

no argument there. But wasn't Jackson in the same position?

Give me Lopez and a 1st rd pick over Kanter and Augustin every day.

jackson was RFA, Lopez UFA, Kanter RFA, they could control Kanter, not Lopez. So it could have been Jackson for literally nothing this year.

Understood. I still would have done the Brooklyn deal. The first round pick was more valuable than anything in the trade IMO.
Jackson for 2 months of Lopez vs Jackson for 15 months of Augustin. Give me Lopez every time.

Nah, see I'd just disagree on the value there. Dj's at least a solid backup.

[loserX]

Holy shnikes, this thread

Couple of quick points and then I hope we can get back to team needs

Utah was quite happy with the Kanter trade. Kanter was just as poisonous in Utah as RJ was in OKC, so getting a future 1st, a 2nd, a foreign prospect, and dumping Novak's extra year (for a guy we'd never have re-signed!) worked out just fine for us. And as I recall, going into the deadline, the prevailing opinion on this board was "why would anyone give ANYTHING for a pouting, low-effort RFA who is arguably the worst defensive player in the league?" So we did pretty well by that standard too

In the end, everybody won. Detroit got a starting PG for spare parts, OKC got a needed post scorer/rebounder for a future pick and a guy who wouldn't sign with them, and Utah got a pick and some goodies for a guy who wouldn't sign with us. I think we all went home happy

[Andre Roberstan]

Holy shnikes, this thread

Couple of quick points and then I hope we can get back to team needs

Utah was quite happy with the Kanter trade. Kanter was just as poisonous in Utah as RJ was in OKC, so getting a future 1st, a 2nd, a foreign prospect, and dumping Novak's extra year (for a guy we'd never have re-signed!) worked out just fine for us. And as I recall, going into the deadline, the prevailing opinion on this board was "why would anyone give ANYTHING for a pouting, low-effort RFA who is arguably the worst defensive player in the league?" So we did pretty well by that standard too

In the end, everybody won. Detroit got a starting PG for spare parts, OKC got a needed post scorer/rebounder for a future pick and a guy who wouldn't sign with them, and Utah got a pick and some goodies for a guy who wouldn't sign with us. I think we all went home happy

I will weigh in and say I'm fine with it too.

Now can we all go back to our regularly scheduled business?

[bondom34]

Holy shnikes, this thread

Couple of quick points and then I hope we can get back to team needs

Utah was quite happy with the Kanter trade. Kanter was just as poisonous in Utah as RJ was in OKC, so getting a future 1st, a 2nd, a foreign prospect, and dumping Novak's extra year (for a guy we'd never have re-signed!) worked out just fine for us. And as I recall, going into the deadline, the prevailing opinion on this board was "why would anyone give ANYTHING for a pouting, low-effort RFA who is arguably the worst defensive player in the league?" So we did pretty well by that standard too

In the end, everybody won. Detroit got a starting PG for spare parts, OKC got a needed post scorer/rebounder for a future pick and a guy who wouldn't sign with them, and Utah got a pick and some goodies for a guy who wouldn't sign with us. I think we all went home happy

Agreed, and its why I vehemently disagree with anyone saying it was a mistake by OKC to do it.