24M in expirings for?

M-C-G · Post #1 » by **M-C-G** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:20 pm

Monroe and Hawes, assuming he opts in make up about 24M in expirings...all the teams looking to create super teams in free agency, what is your offer?

bucksfansince88 · Post #2 » by **bucksfansince88** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:23 pm

send that plus a protected pick to LAC for Deandre jordan?

Post #3 » by **BullyKing** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:31 pm

I'm confused by the premise. Are you offering picks to move these players or do you expect assets back?

Magic Giannison · Post #4 » by **Magic Giannison** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:38 pm

BullyKing wrote:I'm confused by the premise. Are you offering picks to move these players or do you expect assets back?

Assets or expect them to hold good value in some trades.

Karate Diop · Post #5 » by **Karate Diop** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:43 pm

Magic Giannison wrote:
BullyKing wrote:I'm confused by the premise. Are you offering picks to move these players or do you expect assets back?

Assets or expect them to hold good value in some trades.

They probably won't. Look at what the Nets got for Lopez and Lopez is a significantly better player than either Monroe or Hawes.

Post #6 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:46 pm

Magic Giannison wrote:
BullyKing wrote:I'm confused by the premise. Are you offering picks to move these players or do you expect assets back?

Assets or expect them to hold good value in some trades.

Hawes is still negative value. But... You might be able to get someone more negative plus something good.

Its the old:
-2 = -4 + 2.
(bad expiring contract) = (worse contract) + (incentive)

The problem is teams like Sacramento have raw cap space. Which is more attractive than Hawes. So, if they are willing to take the same incentive, they are much more attractive of a trade partner.

Post #7 » by **jbk1234** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:46 pm

These types of offers usually have a lot more value at the trade deadline.

Magic Giannison · Post #8 » by **Magic Giannison** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:51 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:
Magic Giannison wrote:
BullyKing wrote:I'm confused by the premise. Are you offering picks to move these players or do you expect assets back?

Assets or expect them to hold good value in some trades.

Hawes is still negative value. But... You might be able to get someone more negative plus something good.

Its the old:
-2 = -4 + 2.
(bad expiring contract) = (worse contract) + (incentive)

The problem is teams like Sacramento have raw cap space. Which is more attractive than Hawes. So, if they are willing to take the same incentive, they are much more attractive of a trade partner.

I understand where you coming from but is Monroe really a negative compared to his performance last year?
Dunno about Hawes i just thought in a trade where you could load some picks these guys could hold more value.I guess in teams that are blowing it up like Chicago,Indiana and Clippers (?)

Post #9 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:53 pm

Magic Giannison wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:
Magic Giannison wrote:Assets or expect them to hold good value in some trades.

Hawes is still negative value. But... You might be able to get someone more negative plus something good.

Its the old:
-2 = -4 + 2.
(bad expiring contract) = (worse contract) + (incentive)

The problem is teams like Sacramento have raw cap space. Which is more attractive than Hawes. So, if they are willing to take the same incentive, they are much more attractive of a trade partner.

I understand where you coming from but is Monroe really a negative compared to his performance last year?
Dunno about Hawes i just thought in a trade where you could load some picks these guys could hold more value.I guess in teams that are blowing it up like Chicago,Indiana and Clippers (?)

I sidestepped Monroe intentionally and just called Hawes a negative.

I think Monroe is probably close to neutral, it is so much money he opted in, which is not a good sign. But he is also expiring and productive, and you sometimes have to overpay for that combo. If he's negative, I don't think its tremendously so. But I really didn't want to debate Monroe's value in a vacuum, especially when I don't think you want to take on a big long term bad deal like Deng.

K_chile22 · Post #10 » by **K_chile22** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:55 pm

You aren't getting anything for those guys, especially Hawes. Maybe closer to the deadline, but you would be taking back long term salary to do so, otherwise no one would be trading for an expiring

GFreak34 · Post #11 » by **GFreak34** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:08 pm

for nothing that worth more than keeping them and letting them expire next year.. The team just sucks the damage and waste a year with those two plus Henson in the roster.

Better to eat them up, than trade them for equally bad long term deals plus picks.. it's not like the Bucks are rebuilding or something

DoItALL9 · Post #12 » by **DoItALL9** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:13 pm

M-C-G wrote:Monroe and Hawes, assuming he opts in make up about 24M in expirings...all the teams looking to create super teams in free agency, what is your offer?

Do you think Julius Randle and Luol Deng would interest the Bucks?

Deng and 2020 or 2021 1st round pick?

sportscrazy · Post #13 » by **sportscrazy** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:19 pm

If you're going the taking on a bad contract to get added value approach, I would call the Blazers or Lakers.

If you're going getting an upgrade by adding talent to the outgoing offer, I would call the Clippers.

tski1972 · Post #14 » by **tski1972** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:29 pm

If I have to take Deng back for Monroe, I want Zubac and at least one 1st.

K_chile22 · Post #15 » by **K_chile22** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:29 pm

I REALLY doubt they want to take in long term contracts because that can lead to tax concerns pretty soon with Jabari. I'm pretty sure they'd rather just let those guys expire and be able to actually use all of their MLE

GFreak34 · Post #16 » by **GFreak34** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:35 pm

No chance would be acceptable for the Bucks to suck Deng and picks for an expiring Monroe.. Not sucking Crabbe, Ezeli either.. The Bucks keep the expiring contracts and use the cap next year.

M-C-G · Post #17 » by **M-C-G** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:10 pm

DoItALL9 wrote:
M-C-G wrote:Monroe and Hawes, assuming he opts in make up about 24M in expirings...all the teams looking to create super teams in free agency, what is your offer?

Do you think Julius Randle and Luol Deng would interest the Bucks?

Deng and 2020 or 2021 1st round pick?

Randle seems like a bad fit with Giannis and Parker.

M-C-G · Post #18 » by **M-C-G** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:11 pm

BullyKing wrote:I'm confused by the premise. Are you offering picks to move these players or do you expect assets back?

I'm expecting that a team looking to big players in FA next year are going to prioritize shedding salary and be in the market for expirings.

M-C-G · Post #19 » by **M-C-G** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:12 pm

Karate Diop wrote:
Magic Giannison wrote:
BullyKing wrote:I'm confused by the premise. Are you offering picks to move these players or do you expect assets back?

Assets or expect them to hold good value in some trades.

They probably won't. Look at what the Nets got for Lopez and Lopez is a significantly better player than either Monroe or Hawes.

What? Didn't you guys just get D'Angelo Russel as part of that trade?

Post #20 » by **BullyKing** » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:12 pm

M-C-G wrote:
BullyKing wrote:I'm confused by the premise. Are you offering picks to move these players or do you expect assets back?

I'm expecting that a team looking to big players in FA next year are going to prioritize shedding salary and be in the market for expirings.

What teams are looking to shed money for next year right now? And if they exist, wouldn't they be calling the Nets, Kings, and Sixers first who don't have to send anything back?