RealGM

from hoopshype.com rumors

Peter Vecsey: By that, I mean, Ferry/Atl has assembled 3 of DH's AAU teammates--Josh, Lou & Morrow. U might have known that fact. It was news to me. What does that have 2 do w Horford? His salary goes long way toward completing possible sign-and-trade w Lakers. That's all-important since CBA prohibits using FAs in deals involving other FAs. So, if DH decides 2 lv LA, Atl can sign outright or in S&T Twitter

If Horford is being held onto as a trade asset for Howard, and Lakers are looking to deal someone to make the team make more sense why not just jump the gun and deal for Horford right now instead of waiting for the summer? My guess is Lakers can get a better haul for Howard right now than they can over the summer.

Edit: Thread topic is in regards to Horford + ? for Howard NOW vs OVER THE SUMMER, my conjecture is below and is NOT rumor based.

Horford, Pachulia, Harris for Howard, Duhon (only partially guaranteed contract for next season?) and Meeks works in the trade checker and provides the Lakers/Hawks with better fitting teams.

Hawks:
Howard
Smith
Korver
Morrow
Teague

Lakers:

Gasol
Horford
Artest
Kobe
Nash

Thoughts??

if the lakers continue to lose...they might consider trading him, but other then that, i doubt howard will be traded.

There is a rule in the new cba that prevents teams over the cap from using sign and trades. Lakers cannot sign amd trade howard.

I really like this idea, though I know the Lakers would never pull the trigger.
Moving Pau to the 5 and Horford to the 4 is more natural for both players.
And getting Pachulia and Harris in this deal is pretty nice.

If the Lakers made the trade before the deadline, could DH sign his extension in Atl without it being considered a "S+T"??

You lost me at Peter Vescey.

bsktbller wrote:There is a rule in the new cba that prevents teams over the cap from using sign and trades. Lakers cannot sign amd trade howard.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one

• 2011 CBA: Taxpaying teams have a smaller midlevel exception, can acquire less salary in trade, and cannot use the biannual exception. Starting in 2013-14, teams more than $4 million above the tax level cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

Starting in 2013-14, the team receiving the player cannot be above the "apron" ($4 million above the tax level) after the trade1, 2.

The language seems to indicate "team receiving the player in a sign and trade" can not be over the cap. This means, for example, the Nets could not sign and trade for Howard, but the Hawks are below the cap, Lakers actually CAN sign and trade Howard away to a team with significant cap space.

Howard won't extend anywhere, signing a contract with bird rights should lead to a larger contract, though the years are fewer. If Howard wanted the Hawks though, for example, he should demand the trade NOW because he can get more years (if the Hawks are willing to make him their 5 year player)

It's one of the more intriguing Howard trades for sure. Gives him a good landing spot, ATL will have to resign Smith and Teague and find a way to still add other solid players (although maybe Morrow and Korver could work as starters if they plan on surrounding Howard with shooters) with limited space, but that team would be formidable. The Lakers would be better off short term with Horford. He's healthy, fits better, and is a team player to a T.

But, LA should just keep calm and steady. Howard leaves a lot of cash and hurts his reputation even more (which means real money lost in endorsements) if he walks from LA and he isn't even guaranteed a solid landing spot. IMO he's a better fit with Smith than Horford and ATL would have to let Smith walk to get D12 and play him next to Al.

Bottom line, don't trade Howard.

I'm in agreement with most here - I can't see LAL trading Howard. My guess would be that they fire D'Antoni first. Having said that, I'm not sure about LAL's ownership situation (Jim Buss seems to have taken a larger role) and how that would affect their decisions going forward.

Still Ferry did say that he would have put out a deal to ORL for Howard based around Horford, but ORL didn't want to make a deal in the division. I can't see why we wouldn't do the same for LAL.

theatlfan wrote:I'm in agreement with most here - I can't see LAL trading Howard. My guess would be that they fire D'Antoni first. Having said that, I'm not sure about LAL's ownership situation (Jim Buss seems to have taken a larger role) and how that would affect their decisions going forward.

Still Ferry did say that he would have put out a deal to ORL for Howard based around Horford, but ORL didn't want to make a deal in the division. I can't see why we wouldn't do the same for LAL.

My view is this: If Lakers know these 2 things: 1) Pau can still play at a high level for the remainder of Kobe's career and 2) Howard and Pau can not effectively co-exist THEN Horford is a better option for the team. I doubt Lakers will axe D'antoni with as much money already spent on coaches as they have. Phil might come over the summer, but will Howard be man enough to play for Phil? Or rather go home to Atlanta, play with his friends, and be a hometown hero...

Peter Vescey ....cmon man. No thanx. Howard is looking like his old self these past 3 games and is still a top 3 player in the NBA. Anything short of Durant, Lebron will be rejected

Looks like LA is holding Horford out for everyone to see, asking, "ATL can offer Al Horford and 2-3 picks AND can take on salary. Who can make a better offer?"

Why even trade Horford? Dude is a workhorse/stud. He's just being played outta position ...just build around him and take the best package you can get for Josh. Maybe even combo Teague with Josh for a really, really good player.

GhostX wrote:Why even trade Horford? Dude is a workhorse/stud. He's just being played outta position ...just build around him and take the best package you can get for Josh. Maybe even combo Teague with Josh for a really, really good player.

Theory is Josh Smith + Lou Will + Morrow = Howard best buddies list. A team of Teague, Howard, Smith, Morrow, Korver with Lou Williams etc will be a contender.

I get what you are saying, Horford is more of a stable building block than Josh Smith. Why not build around Horford, perhaps try to get a Lopez, or Gortat or something

bsktbller wrote:There is a rule in the new cba that prevents teams over the cap from using sign and trades. Lakers cannot sign amd trade howard.

Larry Coon has confirmed to me that the Lakers CAN actually trade Dwight Howard if they want to in the off-season using Sign-and-Trade. What they CAN'T do is accept players using the sign-and-trade.

^ The only difference between Atlanta trading for Dwight NOW and in the offseason is the amount of his new contract.

Trade for him now = 5-yr deal via Birds.
Trade for him offseason = 4-yr deal via Sign-and-Trade

As for the trade itself, the "friends" thing is so overrated. Atlanta being Dwight's hometown, now that accounts for something atleast.

If the Lakers were to trade Dwight to Atlanta, it would have to also account for a bit of cleaning house and pick acquisition in the process. Something that helps restructure the payroll back to sanity next year and clear out a few loose ends.

Still can't see the Lakers giving up 2014 for Al Horford.

I wouldn't trade Horford for Dwight at this point.

Dwight's back is still injured, and back injuries can be crippling for a big man dependent on his athleticism. He's playing okay in spite of that, but there's no guarantee that he'll ever return to Top 3 in the NBA form.

More importantly, he's a petulant little b**** who's more concerned about making unfunny Youtube videos than he is about putting in the work like a serious professional. I don't want that from my team leader and best player.

warren weel im wrote:

bsktbller wrote:There is a rule in the new cba that prevents teams over the cap from using sign and trades. Lakers cannot sign amd trade howard.

Larry Coon has confirmed to me that the Lakers CAN actually trade Dwight Howard if they want to in the off-season using Sign-and-Trade. What they CAN'T do is accept players using the sign-and-trade.

So what do the Lakers get in a sign and trade? Do they at least get a TPE? Has Coon personally confirmed to you that Lakers can not take back a lesser contract, ie Horford?

Horford isn't a S&T, the lakers can take him in a trade.

What they cannot do is take a S&T'd player back.

warren weel im wrote:As for the trade itself, the "friends" thing is so overrated. Atlanta being Dwight's hometown, now that accounts for something atleast.

If the Lakers were to trade Dwight to Atlanta, it would have to also account for a bit of cleaning house and pick acquisition in the process. Something that helps restructure the payroll back to sanity next year and clear out a few loose ends.

Still can't see the Lakers giving up 2014 for Al Horford.

Do we really have a shot at Lebron in 14 though? Honestly?? I can''t see him being the bad guy again and going to the Lakers for the whole country to say he's just a bandwagoner again.
And if it isn't Lebron, who??? Chris Bosh? Ill take Horford over Bosh. I like this deal TODAY!
Get it done Mitch.