RealGM

Portland sends: Nolan Smith, Elliot Williams, Luke Babbitt
Cleveland sends: Daniel Gibson

For Portland: Although not necessarily trying to become a better team having Gibson would give their starters a bit of needed rest (mainly Lillard and Matthews).

For Cleveland: They probably will let Gibson expire and add some younger players who will most likely see more time with the Cavs then with the Blazers.

If Cleveland has room to add two players to their roster Id vote yes. If they have to waive somebody then I vote no. Let me know the Cleveland roster situation.

Texas Chuck wrote:If Cleveland has room to add two players to their roster Id vote yes. If they have to waive somebody then I vote no. Let me know the Cleveland roster situation.

They have a full roster, so they can't do a 3 for 1 deal. That said, they also have a number of low-paid scrubs that shouldn't be a issue to waive or just add into the deal.

That said, while the value is fine, I don't see how this solves anyones problems. Blazers and Cavs have arguably the two worst benches in the NBA. If one team swaps crap for another teams crap, you still end up with crap.

I'll say yes. Gibson gives Portland a bench scoring option and clears up two roster spots to sign free agents (Pietrus maybe?). With the solid play from the starters, Portland could very likely fight for a playoff spot if they can improve the terrible bench.

This is probably a tougher decision for the Cavs, but I don't see them trying to re-sign Gibson this summer, so they at least get three young players to decide whether or not to keep at the end of the year.

I don't see the point for CLE. They already have 15 players in their roster and to do this trade they would have to waive 2 scrubs in order to add other 3 scrubs with bigger salaries.

Even if the Cavs feel they won't keep Gibson, at least he can contribute. Smith and Babbit are worthless busts and Williams is like the Greg Oden of the guards in terms of injuries.

Cleveland has too many scrubs in their roster already. I don't think they want to add 3 more.

KOTB - no because of CLE

KOTB: No

Gibson is the only sign of life on the bench

Do not want that scrub platter to add to the other scrubs the Cavs already have

Good deal, but none of the teams really earns anything in doing it. Yes, anyway.

The value for the Cavs isnt bad, but considering the fact that Gibson is a huge fan favorite, a nice sized expiring, and the only producing bench player I dont really see the point in taking on all of these below average players, especially since they would have to cut 2 guys to get it done.

Any more opinions?

I'll say yes with the caveat the Cavs may wait to trade Gibson closer to the deadline. Boobie has a partially guaranteed contract. The full amount doesn't have to be picked up until closer to the trade deadline. I could see Gibson included in a bigger deal down down the road. I could also see a contender that needs shooting as a possibility for Boobie.

The Cavs could easily cut Sloan, Harangody or the other riff raff at the end of their bench.

3 yes, 3 no .

Quick, someone weigh in. Thanks!

It's hard to judge because I don't know who Cleveland would buy out and how much that would cost them. I do like it for Portland, but unfortunately I don't think I do for Cleveland. Again not sure who they waive and I think they might be able to make better use of Gibson's expirer.

KOTB: No

Ok, Make me the 5th no for the same roster management reasons.

Sorry, was close and decent.

If I had a choice for the Blazers, I'd take Gibson over Babbitt and Smith. Williams is injured and has always been injured. He's a terrific young talent, but as we saw with Oden... if you can't stay on the court, what's the point? Gimme Gibson, but I agree that this trade doesn't really solve either teams problems and DB said it best... crap is crap.