RealGM

KOTB entry. f you believe all teams would accept this trade, vote yes. If you believe otherwise, vote no. Please explain your vote


Trade after Dec 15th.

Atlanta receive: Chandler, Mozgov, Lamb, TOR 1st.
Atlanta trade: Horford.

No point doing a depth chart as they make this move so they can do some serious rebuilding next offseason.
Teague, Chandler, Lamb, Josh Smith, TOR 1st and A LOT of cap space gives them a lot of flexibility.
If they can then lure Howard to Atlanta, with his friends, then they are serious contenders.
Teague, starting SG, Chandler, Smith, Howard.
+ picks/assets to get a decent bench together.

Denver receive: Horford, Perkins, PJIII.
Denver trade: McGee, Chandler, Mozgov, Quincy Miller.

Yes they take on a bad contract, but they do so in order to consolidate assets and improve. Koufos has proved capable of starting at C. Deal does not really effect depth and salaries ingoing/outgoing are similar. PJIII is also an incentive for taking on Perkins contract.

Lawson, Miller
Iguodala, Fournier
Gallinari, Brewer
Horford, Faried, PJIII.
Koufos, Perkins

OKC receive: McGee, Quincy Miller.
OKC trade: Perkins, Lamb, PJIII, TOR 1st (with protection already in place)

Yes they can amnesty Perk but this deal seems a better idea. Yes they lose valuable pieces but this makes them better now. Yes McGee is not perfect but he is a better offensive player than Perk. He and Ibaka can run and run all day long. Run and gun offense. Perkins never stretched the floor so they do not lose that either.

Westbrook, Sefolosha, Durant, Ibaka, McGee.

OKC is sending out Lamb, PJ3 and the TOR pick, basically to get McGee? In a trade where Horford moves, except they don't get them? OKC hangs up the phone. Vote: No.

So the Thunder trade James Harden for salary reasons only to take on Javale McGee? That's awesome when you think about the shot blocking OKC would have but as a whole:

LOL no

Thought that would come up, couple of reasons why Horford goes to Denver rather than OKC.

1) Horford is a PF. Atlanta are playing him out of position, him and Ibaka leaves OKC with no real 5. Horford is a much better fit in Denver where they have a legit 5 in Koufos.
2) Atlanta would not want to deal directly with OKC because they would have to take on Perk, damages their chances of landing Dwight or another max FA. Chandler from Denver is a moveable contract and a positive asset. They arent moving Perk without taking on another contract. Denver can absorb Perk for now and then deal with him later.

Maybe I let OKC overpay a little, PJIII taken out and Denver keep Quincy Miller? they were picked less than 10 spaces apart in this draft so that alteration may not be a deal breaker for Denver (especially since they have Faried).

Also, one aspect I think you did not consider was the contract. They swap Perks bad contract for a 24 year old center who is improving, ultra athletic and a good fit.
Dumping Perkins and OKC cap situation needs to be considered.



Also in reply to CHA.
Salary reasons yes, I will explain why. (I have said in other threads the Harden trade should not be used to judge other trades , thats happened, OKC have these assets).

Harden + Perk would be $23m or so per year.
McGee is under half that, Martin is an expiring.
If they let martin expire they save over $10m, if they sign him for $7m per year or so they still save $5m+ with this deal.

McGee & Perkins contract are very very close, only a couple mil in it.


EDIT: even if you account for the Harden deal.
Harden (& dumping Perkins contract) for Martin & McGee is not a bad trade.
they stay under the lux tax also.

j_angel wrote:1) Horford is a PF. Atlanta are playing him out of position, him and Ibaka leaves OKC with no real 5. Horford is a much better fit in Denver where they have a legit 5 in Koufos.
2) Atlanta would not want to deal directly with OKC because they would have to take on Perk, damages their chances of landing Dwight or another max FA. Chandler from Denver is a moveable contract and a positive asset. They arent moving Perk without taking on another contract. Denver can absorb Perk for now and then deal with him later.

The rationale for DEN's inclusion here is very, very weak. 1st, Horford has played C at an AS level. Sure, maybe he's a better fit @ PF, but it's not like he's bad @ C either. 2nd, I don't know why Chandler would be called a "moveable contract" - he's done absolutely nothing in his time with DEN. We'd have to do more to rehab him than we would with Perk. At least Perk plays C and someone could get desperate for one of those. Honestly looks like DEN is here just to get an AS for spare parts - I'm sure a team could be found who'd put up decent players and prospects in a deal for an AS C.


ATL would pass on the OP BTW. Lamb and TOR's 1st are nice pieces, but that's not enough to snag Horford. Chandler and Mozgov are fungible and don't do anything for the deal except suck value (see above).

You clearly value McGee more than me.....and 95% of fans. It makes it amazing for Denver and atrocious for OKC.

No.

No

Sam Presti would be roasted rotisserie-style if this were to go down.

With the trade as it stands I vote no. OKC is giving up way to much for not getting Horford and getting McGee


vote no

This is beyond atrocious for OKC. Giving up several decent assets for the luxury of taking on McGee and his contract?

No way.