RealGM

OKC: Markieff Morris + PJ Tucker + Archie Goodwin/Bogdan Bogdanovich + Suns 2016 1st + Cleveland 2016 1st


PHX: Serge Ibaka

Not entirely sure why OKC does it, Serge needs a new contract soon and if Durant gets injured next season, maybe OKC throws the towel in and opts for more long term financial stability. Tucker can play SG, SF, and PF, and gets them more versatility while Kieff does the same

Suns get Ibaka, pair him next to Chandler for a great frontcourt

Yes I know it's ridiculous, but stranger things have happened

For the last time, Ibaka isn't going anywhere. And this isn't even a good package. And I don't think stranger things have happened, you couldn't even list a reason for OKC which should sort of make it lockable but I won't because I don't really care.

Considering that Suns pick is probably the best piece in that deal, I'll just go ahead and say that Ibaka isn't being moved for a package centered around the 10th pick in what appears to be a mediocre draft.

Yeah no chance OKC even considers this for a second.

That's a whole lot of dimes for a shiny gold dollar.

I would not do this deal as a Suns fan.

Scoot McGroot wrote:That's a whole lot of dimes for a shiny gold dollar.

You don't mean to imply Ibaka is worth ten first round picks, are you? Because when you refer to "dimes for a dollar" that's what you're doing.

The trade may or may not not make sense for OKC, but the value isn't the reason.

Laimbeer wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:That's a whole lot of dimes for a shiny gold dollar.

You don't mean to imply Ibaka is worth ten first round picks, are you? Because when you refer to "dimes for a dollar" that's what you're doing.

The trade may or may not not make sense for OKC, but the value isn't the reason.

I would think value is part of the reason. That Cleveland pick is an extremely late 1st and the Phx pick looks suddenly not even a lotto pick.

So, OKC gets a mid 1st a super late 1st and some guys of not remarkable value for Ibaka? Yeah, that value is off.

If the first thing you type under reasons for OKC is "not entirely sure why OKC does it" you probably shouldn't post the deal on this board.

ginobiliflops wrote:I would not do this deal as a Suns fan.

you would as the Suns GM tho.

ginobiliflops wrote:I would not do this deal as a Suns fan.

Every team in the league would trade a bushel of backups and mid to late 1st round draft picks for a player the caliber of Ibaka.

Good deal for the suns. Almost too good.
Pretty sure OKC wouldn't go for this deal, as they want to certify him as 1 of the big 3 with KD and Westbrook. he's shown he has the talent but he needs to do more work.

Good deal for the suns. Almost too good.
Pretty sure OKC wouldn't go for this deal, because they want to certify him as 1 of the big 3 with KD and Westbrook. he's shown he has the talent but he needs to do more work.

Laimbeer wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:That's a whole lot of dimes for a shiny gold dollar.

You don't mean to imply Ibaka is worth ten first round picks, are you? Because when you refer to "dimes for a dollar" that's what you're doing.

The trade may or may not not make sense for OKC, but the value isn't the reason.

Huh? What on Earth are you saying...that I'm saying?

Would you prefer: "That's a whole lot of smaller valued items that, combined, do not add up in value to the other singular item that is worth much more."?

Because that's what I said.

No way OKC does this. When you are a contender, you don't trade away a key piece for a little depth and mid to late picks.

In the immortal words of Snottie Drippen, "Serge is a unicorn".

He's basically a 6'10" 3&D shooting guard who can finish at the rim, hit the midrange jumper, rebound and run the floor. And he's also one of the top 3 or 4 rim protectors in the league.

You don't trade a guy like that.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Laimbeer wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:That's a whole lot of dimes for a shiny gold dollar.

You don't mean to imply Ibaka is worth ten first round picks, are you? Because when you refer to "dimes for a dollar" that's what you're doing.

The trade may or may not not make sense for OKC, but the value isn't the reason.

Huh? What on Earth are you saying...that I'm saying?

Would you prefer: "That's a whole lot of smaller valued items that, combined, do not add up in value to the other singular item that is worth much more."?

Because that's what I said.

I realize the currency comparisons get sloppy, I do it myself. But calling the assets offered "dimes" compared to a dollar implies one tenth the value.

But if you agree these assets are worth more than a tenth, you may want to rethink the value. It's fine for OKC.

Laimbeer wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Laimbeer wrote:
You don't mean to imply Ibaka is worth ten first round picks, are you? Because when you refer to "dimes for a dollar" that's what you're doing.

The trade may or may not not make sense for OKC, but the value isn't the reason.

Huh? What on Earth are you saying...that I'm saying?

Would you prefer: "That's a whole lot of smaller valued items that, combined, do not add up in value to the other singular item that is worth much more."?

Because that's what I said.

I realize the currency comparisons get sloppy, I do it myself. But calling the assets offered "dimes" compared to a dollar implies one tenth the value.

But if you agree these assets are worth more than a tenth, you may want to rethink the value. It's fine for OKC.

The Phoenix pick might be more than a dime (hard to say after the trade). Everything else is pretty much a dime.

Laimbeer wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Laimbeer wrote:
You don't mean to imply Ibaka is worth ten first round picks, are you? Because when you refer to "dimes for a dollar" that's what you're doing.

The trade may or may not not make sense for OKC, but the value isn't the reason.

Huh? What on Earth are you saying...that I'm saying?

Would you prefer: "That's a whole lot of smaller valued items that, combined, do not add up in value to the other singular item that is worth much more."?

Because that's what I said.

I realize the currency comparisons get sloppy, I do it myself. But calling the assets offered "dimes" compared to a dollar implies one tenth the value.

But if you agree these assets are worth more than a tenth, you may want to rethink the value. It's fine for OKC.

The pieces offered together to
OKC do not combine to equal the value of Ibaka. Not even close. It's not fine for OKC.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Laimbeer wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:
Huh? What on Earth are you saying...that I'm saying?

Would you prefer: "That's a whole lot of smaller valued items that, combined, do not add up in value to the other singular item that is worth much more."?

Because that's what I said.

I realize the currency comparisons get sloppy, I do it myself. But calling the assets offered "dimes" compared to a dollar implies one tenth the value.

But if you agree these assets are worth more than a tenth, you may want to rethink the value. It's fine for OKC.

The pieces offered together to
OKC do not combine to equal the value of Ibaka. Not even close. It's not fine for OKC.

Tap the brakes. Unique and great aren't the same thing. He's not top 20 guy or a guy you build around. He's a 3D player on steroids, an ultimate role player. But he's not star or a centerpiece.

He has two years until becoming unrestricted. Morris has four, Tucker two, Goodwin two and then under control, as well as a late and a mid to higher first. To say that doesn't compare to two years of Ibaka is silly.