RealGM

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:54 pm**

Trade ID# 6137706

Brooklyn Nets Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players: Anderson Varejao, Tayshaun Prince
Outgoing Players: Kris Humphries, Gerald Wallace
BRK sacrifices firepower to improve team defense.
Williams, Johnson, Prince, Varejao, Lopez
Watson, Brooks, Shengelia, Teletovic, Evans

Cleveland Cavaliers Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players: Kris Humphries, Rodney Stuckey
Outgoing Players: Anderson Varejao, Donald Sloan
CLE clears '14 cap and upgrades on the wing.
Irving, Stuckey, Casspi, Humphries, Zeller
Gibson, Waiters, Miles, Thompson, Leuer

Detroit Pistons Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players: Gerald Wallace, Donald Sloan
Outgoing Players: Rodney Stuckey, Tayshaun Prince
DET consolidates long-term salary.
Knight, Maggette, Wallace, Jerebko, Monroe
Bynum, English, Daye, Villanueva, Drummond

***EDITED to send Stuckey to CLE instead of Villanueva, and Sloan to DET instead of Walton. Thanks for the feedback!***

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:05 pm**

I think its far too good for Detroit, Cleveland says no. Charlie V sucks, and Wallace>Prince, so Detroit makes out too well. Cutting out the Charlie V for Walton swap and maybe having Pistons send a 2nd to Cleveland makes it closer.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:22 pm**

-Kees- wrote:I think its far too good for Detroit, Cleveland says no. Charlie V sucks, and Wallace>Prince, so Detroit makes out too well. Cutting out the Charlie V for Walton swap and maybe having Pistons send a 2nd to Cleveland makes it closer.

I almost sent Stuckey to CLE instead of CV. Would that balance out the value better? Or would a DET lotto-protected future 1st do the trick? I wasn't sure how DET would feel about moving Rodney, since their G depth is already shaky.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:23 pm**

This isnt too good for Detroit. They are in no position to want to pay Crash $40mil over 4 years while they are in the lottery. Makes no sense. You would be better off finding a team that could use Crash that could send a shorter contract to Cle.

Something like:

Nets out Hump/Crash/1st
Nets in Varejao/Young/Gibson

Philly out Young/Hawes
Philly in Walton/Crash

Cle out Varejao/Walton/Gibson
Cle in Hawes/Hump/1st

Cle shaves a year off AV's deal while getting big man depth for a couple years.
Philly consolidates Young/Hawes into Crash and saves $$ to add a piece next offseason
Brooklyn gets back better fitting pieces in AV and Thad and a one year backup in Gibson

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:24 pm**

Awful for Cavs and way too good for the Pistons.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:08 pm**

OK, I've made some changes, hopefully to address the general opinion that CLE and DET are off in value.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:38 pm**

Pistons dont consider it. We downgrade talent and more LT salary. Easy no.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:26 pm**

This is awful. Wallace's extra salary wasn't worth moving Prince (an able starter who is likely retiring here) and CV (who can be amnestied and open up max cap space next summer), and now that you have us giving up our starting SG for a 3rd string PG, it's even less palatable.

Get Detroit out of this deal.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:56 pm**

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:25 am**

^

So, CLE and DET both think they are overpaying. Is there any sort of happy medium?

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:42 am**

ecuhus1981 wrote:^

So, CLE and DET both think they are overpaying. Is there any sort of happy medium?

I'm just not too interested in Hump or Stuckey.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:46 am**

ecuhus1981 wrote:
^

So, CLE and DET both think they are overpaying. Is there any sort of happy medium?

Theres not much interest from Detroit to change from Prince to Wallace. The deal fails from that angle.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:57 am**

RTM wrote:
ecuhus1981 wrote:
^

So, CLE and DET both think they are overpaying. Is there any sort of happy medium?

Theres not much interest from Detroit to change from Prince to Wallace. The deal fails from that angle.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:58 am**

RTM wrote:
ecuhus1981 wrote:
^

So, CLE and DET both think they are overpaying. Is there any sort of happy medium?

Theres not much interest from Detroit to change from Prince to Wallace. The deal fails from that angle.

I can understand that, but wouldn't moving CV for an expirer hold appeal? Don't know their cap situation off the top of my head, but it seems that could help them next summer. NVM I see the OP was edited. This makes no sense for Detroit.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:48 am**

Trader_Joe wrote:I can understand that, but wouldn't moving CV for an expirer hold appeal? Don't know their cap situation off the top of my head, but it seems that could help them next summer. NVM I see the OP was edited. This makes no sense for Detroit.

Amnestying CV they would have nearly enough cap space for 2 max salaries next season. So trading CV for an expire contract holds little to no appeal since they already have a lot of cap space even with CV on the books and if they want more cap space they can just amnesty him.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:17 am**

BossHoggin wrote:
ecuhus1981 wrote:^

So, CLE and DET both think they are overpaying. Is there any sort of happy medium?

I'm just not too interested in Hump or Stuckey.

Cleveland just drafted a potentially better version of Stuckey, and if they wanted Humphries, they could have signed him outright to a long term deal.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:00 pm**

Just a quick note that you can do this sort of thing after December 15th this year, last year was only January because of the lockout.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:55 pm**

vege wrote:
Trader_Joe wrote:I can understand that, but wouldn't moving CV for an expirer hold appeal? Don't know their cap situation off the top of my head, but it seems that could help them next summer. NVM I see the OP was edited. This makes no sense for Detroit.

Amnestying CV they would have nearly enough cap space for 2 max salaries next season. So trading CV for an expire contract holds little to no appeal since they already have a lot of cap space even with CV n the books and if they want more cap space they can just amnesty him.

"they can just" Real GMs favorite expression that's not grounded in reality. Of course they CAN, its would they that matters. Not many people like paying someone $7m not to play and then add a new players salary on top of that.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:54 pm**

Trader_Joe wrote:"they can just" Real GMs favorite expression that's not grounded in reality. Of course they CAN, its would they that matters. Not many people like paying someone $7m not to play and then add a new players salary on top of that.

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:14 pm**

vege wrote:
Trader_Joe wrote:"they can just" Real GMs favorite expression that's not grounded in reality. Of course they CAN, its would they that matters. Not many people like paying someone $7m not to play and then add a new players salary on top of that.

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Explain. My point is how often have we seen "no, team x and can just sign player y. " or team x can just amnesty player y." around here?

Again its easy to say when its not our money, but not always the case. For a team like Detroit who I'm assuming may feel some financial hardships being in a depressed city, I'm not sure how willing they are to throw money around.....or any owner or team for that matter.

RealGM

On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET

Re: On Or After January 15th: BRK, CLE, DET